Is SETI Science

rakovsky

Well-known member
Is that really what you think the scientific method is?

Observation: There is life on our planet and we use radios to communicate. There are other planets older than ours.
Hypothesis: Life on other planets could exist and could be advanced and use radio to communicate. They could be sending radio waves to earth.
Test: Set up big radio receivers to catch signals
Conclusions: So far, there are either no signals discernable or else some signals that we have trouble deciphering.

SETI is still on Phase 4.

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.
Looking for the monster by watching the lake is science in some primitive form.
eg. "Chris has looking for frogs in the yard down to a science."
"Having something down to a science" is a colloquial expression that can be technically true.

Fancy technology and a systematic method like recording results (eg. a log book) makes it more refined.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
Carl Sagan founded SETI.
Encyclopedia Britannica says:
Although Sagan did important research on planetary atmospheres, in astrobiology, and on the origin of life on Earth, he made his reputation primarily as a spokesman for science and a popularizer of astronomy. In the 1970s and ’80s he was probably the best-known scientist in the United States. Both an advocate for and a showman of science, he invested much of his career in improving public understanding of science and defending its rational nature.




Page 1

Journal of The British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 52, pp. 3-12, 1999
SEARCHING FOR GOOD SCIENCE:
THE CANCELLATION OF NASA'S SETI PROGRAM
STEPHEN J. GARBER
NASA History Office, Code ZH, Washington, DC 20546-0001, USA
On Columbus Day. 1992, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) formally initiated a radio astronomy​
program called SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence). Less than a year later, Congress abruptly canceled the​
program. Why? While there was and still is a debate over the likelihood of finding intelligent extraterrestrial life, virtually
all informed parties agreed that the SETI program constituted worthwhile, valid science.
Yet, fervor over the federal budget deficit, lack of support from other scientists and aerospace contractors and a significant history of unfounded associations with nonscientific elements combined with bad timing in fall 1993 to make the program an easy target to eliminate. Thus​
SETI was a relative anomaly in terms of a small, scientifically valid program that was canceled for political expediency.​
THE SCIENCE OF SETI
The first step in assessing scientific value is usually peer
review. Do other knowledgeable scientists agree that the re-
searchers' questions and methods of inquiry reflect proper
scientific method? If so, then the results are usually accepted
and further research is encouraged. NASA's SETI programme
generally received high marks on this score. A 1991 National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) working paper done by the Radio
Astronomy Panel concluded that even though SETI was not
formally a radio astronomy programme, it contained exciting,
valid science. The panel therefore recommended establishing
a complementary university-based research programme to
help NASA develop search algorithms and signal processors
[14]. Similar NAS studies in 1982 and 1972 concluded that
SETI was an exciting, worthwhile scientific programme. In
1982, the journal Science published a petition put together by
Sagan that was signed by numerous prestigious scientists,
including biologists and biochemists such as Stephen Jay
Gould, David Baltimore, and Linus Pauling [15].


The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence​

There can be little doubt that civilizations more advanced than the earth's exist elsewhere in the universe. The probabilities involved in locating one of them call for a substantial effort.
Is mankind alone in the universe? Or are there somewhere other intelligent beings looking up into their night sky from very different worlds and asking the same kind of question? Are there civilizations more advanced than ours, civilizations that have achieved interstellar communication and have established a network of linked societies throughout our galaxy? Such questions, bearing on the deepest problems of the nature and destiny of mankind, were long the exclusive province of theology and speculative fiction. Today for the first time in human history they have entered into the realm of experimental science.
 

inertia

Super Member
Is gathering data a scientific activity?

The scientific issue with SETI is that their ultra-wideband signal recordings are unconstrained by mathematical models. A randomly obtained "signal" that is simply unusual isn't scientifically valuable without a means to quantitatively constrain and understand its characteristics. It might be interesting, and even beautiful with believable judgments from believers, but randomly detected signals do not arbitrate scientific discourse. Scientific measurements are ultimately based on models that are judged with cold, hard, experimental facts.

The Drake Equation is insufficient because it contains unknown variables that cannot be assessed* with any precision, unlike astrobiology research where discovery is determined using well-understood criteria.

Drake Equation_Credit National Geographic.JPG
Image credit: National Geographic

___

* The average length of time that a given civilization is detectable, L, is particularly difficult to assess.

.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
The scientific issue with SETI is that their ultra-wideband signal recordings are unconstrained by mathematical models. A randomly obtained "signal" that is simply unusual isn't scientifically valuable without a means to quantitatively constrain and understand its characteristics. It might be interesting, and even beautiful with believable judgments from believers, but randomly detected signals do not arbitrate scientific discourse. Scientific measurements are ultimately based on models that are judged with cold, hard, experimental facts.
Dear Inertia,
It sounds like you have some scientific background. I welcome you to read "The Science of SETI" in the NASA article:
https://history.nasa.gov/garber.pdf

I understand what you are saying- That if SETI gets unusual signals, we don't have a way to evaluate the signals because we don't have a model that shows how to evaluate them.

Nonetheless, finding the unusual signals and gathering the data is still science.

Imagine that your hypothesis is that some people have mutant genes that make them exceptionally tall, yet you have not yet mastered the field of genetics enough to see the mutant genetics. As a scientist, your goal can be to look for people with mutations that make them tall in order to test your hypothesis. So you can look for all people taller than a certain size. In this case, you are getting scientific data, even if you as a non-geneticist do not know how to use the data.

If SETI does not have a math model yet to evaluate the data or has a flawed math model, then this does not keep their research into unusual signals from being scientific.
 
Last edited:

rakovsky

Well-known member
It can be. Is compiling a shopping list science? It involves collecting data, but no one would claim it is science.
If you cross off everything in the shopping list that the store does not have, then it would be primitive science:
In that case, you would have tested using your search to get data on which of your valued items the store has.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Carl Sagan founded SETI.
Encyclopedia Britannica says:
I am not sure what your argument is. Can you explain in your own words?

In case you are not aware, the background to this is whether ID is science. My view is SETI is not science, but I fully accept I could be wrong, so I invited people to present their arguments. We can then see if those arguments also apply to ID.

So far the best I have seen is:
  • It is done by scientists
  • It uses science
  • It collects data
I do not believe any of them are sufficient to make an activity science.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
If you cross off everything in the shopping list that the store does not have, then it would be primitive science:
In that case, you would have tested using your search to get data on which of your valued items the store has.
Is it really science? Can you talk me through the predictions here? How is it falsifiable?
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
I am not sure what your argument is. Can you explain in your own words?
OVERALL: SETI and NASA and college laboratories, etc. are not "science". They are scientific institutes that use science.

OXFORD LANGUAGES:
SCIENCE

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"

You write:
So far the best I have seen is:
  • It is done by scientists
  • It uses science
  • It collects data
I do not believe any of them are sufficient to make an activity science.
If this is what the scientists are basically doing, then their activity basically meets the definition of science.
Scientists collecting data in pursuit of science is scientific activity.

Why am I even debating this?




You seem to be confusing "bad science" with non-science.

Example:
Bob collects data on condor bird sizes to test his hypothesis that mythical giant condor birds exist. To evaluate his data, he sees if any of the results get even close to the size of giant condors, and whether there are any much bigger than the size of condors already reported.

Bob finds that all of 2000 condors measured are all well within the natural size known for condors. He decides that mythical giant condors are unlikely in nature. Bob's conclusion is reasonable.
Or:
Bob finds a condor slightly bigger than the known limits. Bob concludes that there must be condors 5 times bigger than known condors. This is bad science. But his process is still "scientific activity."

There are lots of other examples of bad science that still follow the scientific method and meet the definition.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
Is it really science? Can you talk me through the predictions here? How is it falsifiable?
Why I am I spending my time on this?

Cindy wants to see if the store has her items. She makes a hypothesis that it does or does not. She collects data with her shopping list by marking off items. She makes conclusions based on her results..... She meets the definition of performing "science," technically.

Bob is searching for lost treasure. Bob searches all known areas for the treasure and marks off the spots that he searched on a grid. Bob comes up with no pieces of treasure. Bob is performing science.
 

inertia

Super Member
Dear Inertia,
It sounds like you have some scientific background. I welcome you to read "The Science of SETI" in the NASA article:
https://history.nasa.gov/garber.pdf

I understand what you are saying- That if SETI gets unusual signals, we don't have a way to evaluate the signals because we don't have a model that shows how to evaluate them.

Nonetheless, finding the unusual signals and gathering the data is still science.

Thanks for sharing the link to the 1999 NASA paper. Certainly, SETI has been a political lightning rod. Science costs money and we need to know what is feasible and what are the realistic expectations for proposed exploration. Private funding for believers is still an avenue that can work for the foreseeable future. :cool: However, astrobiologists keep their proverbial distance for good reasons. Searching for aliens and flying saucers is based on the belief that unidentified aerial phenomena are strictly from extraterrestrial sources. It's a belief - not science. The data to date does not support the concept. According to the Air Force and the University of Colorado, nothing from decades of searching for so-called SETI technosignatures has contributed to scientific knowledge.

If the data collection efforts do not contribute to scientific knowledge, then the effort is no more than background noise with no discernable signal to merit further study. Simply gathering data about a particular belief does not constitute scientific exploration. Gathering data to bolster a theoretical construct such as the presence of liquid water, atmospheric oxygen, and methane presence on another planet has merit and is why the field of Astrobiology is a government-funded scientific endeavor.

Imagine that your hypothesis is that some people have mutant genes that make them exceptionally tall, yet you have not yet mastered the field of genetics enough to see the mutant genetics. As a scientist, your goal can be to look for people with mutations that make them tall in order to test your hypothesis. So you can look for all people taller than a certain size. In this case, you are getting scientific data, even if you as a non-geneticist do not know how to use the data.

If SETI does not have a math model yet to evaluate the data or has a flawed math model, then this does not keep their research into unusual signals from being scientific.

The history of Gamma-Ray Burst discovery might be a better example for your argument. Here GMB's were discovered using satellites designed to detect gamma radiation pulses emitted by nuclear weapon tests. The sensors were specifically calibrated for a very narrow band of electromagnetic radiation due to previous observations and well-known theoretical concepts. What we observed was a surprise. There were GMB's coming from great distances ( billions of light-years away ) and are known to be one of the most energetic objects in the universe.

Still, unlike SETI's random unsubstantiated wide-ranged data collection, the quite accidental discovery of GMB's was confined to a known phenomenon that lead to increasing scientific knowledge.

___
 
Last edited:

rakovsky

Well-known member
Thanks for sharing the link to the 1999 NASA paper. Certainly, SETI has been a political lightning rod. Science costs money and we need to know what is feasible and what are the realistic expectations for proposed exploration. Private funding for believers is still an avenue that can work for the foreseeable future. :cool: However, astrobiologists keep their proverbial distance for good reasons. Searching for aliens and flying saucers is based on the belief that unidentified aerial phenomena are strictly from extraterrestrial sources. It's a belief - not science. The data to date does not support the concept. According to the Air Force and the University of Colorado, nothing from decades of searching for so-called SETI technosignatures has contributed to scientific knowledge.

If the data collection efforts do not contribute to scientific knowledge, then the effort is no more than background noise with no discernable signal to merit further study. Simply gathering data about a particular belief does not constitute scientific exploration. Gathering data to bolster a theoretical construct such as the presence of liquid water, atmospheric oxygen, and methane presence on another planet has merit and is why the field of Astrobiology is a government-funded scientific endeavor.



The history of Gamma-Ray Burst discovery might be a better example for your argument. Here GMB's were discovered using satellites designed to detect gamma radiation pulses emitted by nuclear weapon tests. The sensors were specifically calibrated for a very narrow band of electromagnetic radiation due to previous observations and well-known theoretical concepts. What we observed was a surprise. There were GMB's coming from great distances ( billions of light-years away ) and are known to be one of the most energetic objects in the universe.

Still, unlike SETI's random unsubstantiated wide-ranged data collection, the quite accidental discovery of GMB's was confined to a known phenomenon that lead to increasing scientific knowledge.

___
Nice to hear from you. I am a somewhat open minded person, but also having a partly academic, skeptical mindset, with a little "S."

Take the existence of gorillas or komodo dragons. In the 19th century, we had stories about them, but no proven discovery. Some scientists, as I recall, dismissed the existence of the creatures. I would want to be open minded about their existence, but also have some skepticism.

I think that there is a certain mindset called "Skepticism" with a capital S that harshly dismisses new theories or theories not widely proven. I am talking about the mindset of Skeptical scientists who rejected the reported existence of the gorillas and komodo dragons. To say that these Skeptics reject anything that cannot be easily proven in a material way, that they can see, weigh, and feel directly seems too simplistic a criticism of Skepticism. But the description has a grain of truth.

Take for instance the Paranormal. There is a certain Skeptical mindset that would say something like "The Paranormal is False." However, I believe that "the Paranormal" is real, and it's a quite interesting topic in some areas. The Paranormal is phenomena that science does not explain - the subjects are not part of known science. However, there are in fact phenomena that science has observed and recorded, but which do not fit within known scientific understandings and knowledge of the mechanics of nature.

  • One of them is extreme distance animal navigation, like pets traveling across the country to find their homes and butterflies traveling across continents in migration patterns to their birthplaces.
  • Another one is animal or human magnetism, ie. magnetic fields affecting people or animals.
  • A third is how people can feel changes in environmental air pressure, like when they can feel a storm coming into their area.
  • Quantum level synchronicity is an observed phenomenon that is not understood scientifically. Retrocausality is theorized at the quantum level, but as I recall, not all scientists agree with the theory of quantum retrocausality. They might not agree that retrocausality is real at the quantum level.
 

Martin23233

Active member
I am not sufficiently familiar with AI research to say. Perhaps you could say why you think it is science?
The Pixie states: "I am using science now top post on CARM. But I am not doing science!"
My response was that simply posting on CARM by you clearly does not seem to be science however, some AI Chat Bots can actually learn as they interact. Through various programs a 'bot' can select from various algorithms and AI can respond differently (like learning chess or other things) AI can indeed be
Wow, you can quote experts.
Snarky Much?
Can you should how this applies to SETI?
'
I'm guessing you did not read the whole post.....and you might have glossed over where an observation made by SETI that detected an intelligent alien signal...was later falsified. So SETI's findings can certainly be falsifiable however SETI as a scientific endeavor can never fully be falsifiable........which is fine since SETI can't scan the entirety of the whole universe....but what it can do is just continue using science in it's scientific endeavor to find signals from 'out there'.
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..
You grossly over estimate yourself. I need to point out how you attempt to mischaracterize what is said ....these are very weak and obvious attempts. The Pixie accuses " the guy thinks using technology makes an activity science.."
Never have i said such a thing but of course it may be your lack of understanding between technology and the methods and means used by those technologies. I guess things need to be made more obvious.


"So, yes, SETI is legitimate science. It is searching for evidence that directly tests a very interesting hypothesis. The fact that it can never prove a negative version of that hypothesis (there are no intelligence radio sources in the universe) is irrelevant."

So what is the Pix to do now? No longer able to credibly argue that SETI is not a scientific endeavor? The Pix's worst fear...and Pix tried their best but in the end failed. So I guess the whole point of this OP was actually 'triggered' by a discussion on another thread where I stated ID (Intelligent Design) is a scientific endeavor. Seems the Pix took offense but could not say why ID is not a scientific endeavor.... only that ID has to be religion in disguise ( creationism under the covers)
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
OVERALL: SETI and NASA and college laboratories, etc. are not "science". They are scientific institutes that use science.

OXFORD LANGUAGES:


You write:

If this is what the scientists are basically doing, then their activity basically meets the definition of science.
Scientists collecting data in pursuit of science is scientific activity.

Why am I even debating this?
The scientific method involves proposing a hypothesis, drawing necessary and bold predictions, and testing those predictions. If you are not doing that, you are not doing science.

It is as simple as that.

It does not matter if you use fancy technology. It does not even matter if you are a qualified scientist of not.

In addition, from your definition, it is about the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. I am not disputing that.

You seem to be confusing "bad science" with non-science.

Example:
Bob collects data on condor bird sizes to test his hypothesis that mythical giant condor birds exist. To evaluate his data, he sees if any of the results get even close to the size of giant condors, and whether there are any much bigger than the size of condors already reported.

Bob finds that all of 2000 condors measured are all well within the natural size known for condors. He decides that mythical giant condors are unlikely in nature. Bob's conclusion is reasonable.
Or:
Bob finds a condor slightly bigger than the known limits. Bob concludes that there must be condors 5 times bigger than known condors. This is bad science. But his process is still "scientific activity."

There are lots of other examples of bad science that still follow the scientific method and meet the definition.
Why is the second bad science?

Just to be clear, I agree it is. I am asking what your reasoning is here. My reasoning is that he not using the scientific method. There are no predictions involved.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
The Pixie states: "I am using science now top post on CARM. But I am not doing science!"
My response was that simply posting on CARM by you clearly does not seem to be science
Why not, Martin?

What is your reasoning? I am a scientist, I am using fancy technology. Just like SETI. So why is it not science?

however, some AI Chat Bots can actually learn as they interact. Through various programs a 'bot' can select from various algorithms and AI can respond differently (like learning chess or other things) AI can indeed be
Are you saying that that is science? If not, what is your point?

Snarky Much?
EDITED--RULE 12 VIOLATION

I'm guessing you did not read the whole post.....and you might have glossed over where an observation made by SETI that detected an intelligent alien signal...was later falsified. So SETI's findings can certainly be falsifiable however SETI as a scientific endeavor can never fully be falsifiable........which is fine since SETI can't scan the entirety of the whole universe....but what it can do is just continue using science in it's scientific endeavor to find signals from 'out there'.
So you agree it is not falsifiable!

Or do you think being wrong magically makes something science? If a kid gets a question wrong in an exam, is that science?

As we keep telling you, you really need to learn what falsifiable means in the context of science.

You grossly over estimate yourself. I need to point out how you attempt to mischaracterize what is said ....these are very weak and obvious attempts. The Pixie accuses " the guy thinks using technology makes an activity science.."
Never have i said such a thing but of course it may be your lack of understanding between technology and the methods and means used by those technologies. I guess things need to be made more obvious.
That is the only argument I have seen you made. Can you point me to a post where you have presented another reason?


"So, yes, SETI is legitimate science. It is searching for evidence that directly tests a very interesting hypothesis. The fact that it can never prove a negative version of that hypothesis (there are no intelligence radio sources in the universe) is irrelevant."
Wow, you found the blog post I linked to from the OP.

So what is the Pix to do now? No longer able to credibly argue that SETI is not a scientific endeavor? The Pix's worst fear...and Pix tried their best but in the end failed. So I guess the whole point of this OP was actually 'triggered' by a discussion on another thread where I stated ID (Intelligent Design) is a scientific endeavor. Seems the Pix took offense but could not say why ID is not a scientific endeavor.... only that ID has to be religion in disguise ( creationism under the covers)
Still waiting for you to provide your reasoning, Martin.

Given we went though this for month on the other thread, I am sure it will never happen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

inertia

Super Member
Nice to hear from you. I am a somewhat open minded person, but also having a partly academic, skeptical mindset, with a little "S."

Take the existence of gorillas or komodo dragons. In the 19th century, we had stories about them, but no proven discovery. Some scientists, as I recall, dismissed the existence of the creatures. I would want to be open minded about their existence, but also have some skepticism.

I think that there is a certain mindset called "Skepticism" with a capital S that harshly dismisses new theories or theories not widely proven. I am talking about the mindset of Skeptical scientists who rejected the reported existence of the gorillas and komodo dragons. To say that these Skeptics reject anything that cannot be easily proven in a material way, that they can see, weigh, and feel directly seems too simplistic a criticism of Skepticism. But the description has a grain of truth.

Take for instance the Paranormal. There is a certain Skeptical mindset that would say something like "The Paranormal is False." However, I believe that "the Paranormal" is real, and it's a quite interesting topic in some areas. The Paranormal is phenomena that science does not explain - the subjects are not part of known science. However, there are in fact phenomena that science has observed and recorded, but which do not fit within known scientific understandings and knowledge of the mechanics of nature.

  • One of them is extreme distance animal navigation, like pets traveling across the country to find their homes and butterflies traveling across continents in migration patterns to their birthplaces.
  • Another one is animal or human magnetism, ie. magnetic fields affecting people or animals.
  • A third is how people can feel changes in environmental air pressure, like when they can feel a storm coming into their area.
  • Quantum level synchronicity is an observed phenomenon that is not understood scientifically. Retrocausality is theorized at the quantum level, but as I recall, not all scientists agree with the theory of quantum retrocausality. They might not agree that retrocausality is real at the quantum level.

Concerning SETI, attitudes are/were much different than the historical accounts shown above, even for hardened skeptics. Discoveries changed perception. One critical parameter showing cultural perception in earlier times is that it was funded by congress. History now records, after decades of searching, there was no new scientific knowledge generated from funding the belief. Clearly, the resources and time spent could have been used for better scientific projects.

From htttps://cires/colorado.edu

Science vs Pseudoscience.JPG

___
 
Last edited:

Martin23233

Active member
The Pixie opened up this heavily flawed Thread with :
"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."

Which we know now is just not true.... the Pix tries to falsely make it an either/or outcome...and we are all smart enough to note other possible outcomes.
The Pix thinks that neither of their Either/Or outcome is falsifiable that too was proven false as SETI actually did detect a signal it believed alien....but it WAS later FALSIFIED....

It appears that The Pixie is attempting to mischaracterize an action (like searching for something) as being what SETI is only doing.... Again by The Pixie:
"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!"

The Pixie misses the point of the science behind the 'looking'... the methods used the math used ...ect.... Certainly looking for the lost Pixie socks would likely not be science....but let's be real honest here - the Pixie knows that searching for socks is not the same things as searching for signals from other systems....yet does not wish to admit to the mischaracterization....hmmm why is that?
From Wiki:
"The search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) is a collective term for scientific searches for intelligent extraterrestrial life, for example, monitoring electromagnetic radiation for signs of transmissions from civilizations on other planets.[1][2][3]

Scientific investigation began shortly after the advent of radio in the early 1900s,"


Now I am going to "pull A Pixie" here , and please forgive me for this...but using the 'logic' the Pix is trying to use by their own words: "looking for something does not make it science"
So looking for fossil linkages - not a science according to Pixie
Looking for a viral cure - not a science according to Pixie

Clearly I can go on and on here but I think most of us get the point about 'the looking' part. The Pixie desperately tries to only keep the focus on just looking...and then even tried to ...prove the point by adding ...looking for socks..... I think it was at this point that all can see the desperate nature of such an argument. Most gave the Pixie a pass on the blunder (till now)

I'm pretty sure The Pixie actually agrees that looking for fossil linkage can indeed be science..... looking for a viral cure ..also a science too.... I just find it so odd and desperate then to pick and choose what one's subjective mind believes to be a scientific endeavor or no
 
Last edited:

Martin23233

Active member
Why not, Martin?

What is your reasoning? I am a scientist, I am using fancy technology. Just like SETI. So why is it not science?
The Pixie first claims that posting on CARM is not science..now the Pixie backtracks and wants to know why? Hmmmm seems like either the pixie forgot what they posted earlier of is just fishing for clarification on what constitutes science. So the Pixie appears not to be a scientist but for the sake of the discussion lets assume Pixie's point that they are a scientist an is using 'fancy' technology (not sure Pix can define what they mean by 'fancy' but it clearly shows a strong scientific term for defining technology....ha )... therefore the Pixie wants to understand why is it that posting on CARM by a scientist is not science?
First one needs to filter out the Pixie's lack of comparison...... folks do this often sometimes intentionally or just out of lack of understanding....it's called a fallacy. comparing two entirely different objects and trying to tie some subjective observation to a similar result or dis-similar.
The correct question is how is SETI using the scientific method to sample and test it's results against it's hypothesis...using it's 'fancy' technology.
this is completely different than Pixie just typing out a response or question on a 'fancy' keyboard attached to a fancy PC...attached to a 'fancy' network connection. I doubt Pixie applies any amount of scientific method to their postings on CARM - that is why you posting on CARM is not 'science' ..but like you stated above you posting on CARM is not science... but you certainly could make your posting on CARM a less rigorous scientific endeavor if you set up some control sets and models with a pre-constructed hypothesis you would like to test against...and then compare your posts against your expected / desired results or if are really just 'less' rigorous ... just start tracking your results... then you could make a really lose argument for your posts being slightly a scientific endeavor.
Are you saying that that is science? If not, what is your point?
Was only helping you out with your lack of understanding of AI... above you stated you did not know much about AI and asked me to explain. So my point clearly shows how an AI chat bot can be/ is a scientific endeavor.
So you agree it is not falsifiable!
I'm guessing you did not read the whole post.....and you might have glossed over where an observation made by SETI that detected an intelligent alien signal...was later falsified. So SETI's findings can certainly be falsifiable however SETI as a scientific endeavor can never fully be falsifiable........which is fine since SETI can't scan the entirety of the whole universe....but what it can do is just continue using science in it's scientific endeavor to find signals from 'out there'.
Or do you think being wrong magically makes something science? If a kid gets a question wrong in an exam, is that science?
I am starting to think that you don't really understand what is being discussed here. Trying to conflate falsifiability with claiming that 2+2 = 5 (a wrong answer) is not the same thing, and shows that either there is a massive mis-understanding on what falsifiability is and how it relates to science. this is starting to get humorous
As we keep telling you, you really need to learn what falsifiable means in the context of science.
Wow.... says the person who thinks getting a wrong answer on a test should be compared to falsifiable. just wow.
That is the only argument I have seen you made. Can you point me to a post where you have presented another reason?
Let me help you out:
Post #13 where I stated:
"SETI scientists...uses science and the scientific method." So clearly here is a post that states 'method' as in scientific method ..get it?

Post #17 where I try to make it even more clear for you that technology does not = science:
"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."

So much for "that is the only argument I have seen you made."...... since you have never seen me make that argument, and when pressed so show a quote.... i find it a bit disingenuous to make false claims of such.
Wow, you found the blog post I linked to from the OP.
Wow... you should of read the whole post you linked.... it would have saved a whole lot of embarrassment:

"So, yes, SETI is legitimate science. It is searching for evidence that directly tests a very interesting hypothesis. The fact that it can never prove a negative version of that hypothesis (there are no intelligence radio sources in the universe) is irrelevant."

Still waiting for you to provide your reasoning, Martin.

Given we went though this for month on the other thread, I am sure it will never happen.
Looks like you will have to go back and re-read (for comprehension this time) my reasoning for why ID is not 'religion' or just creationism in disguise. Ignoring things like links from ID sites and quotes by non-creationists only show that you will likely continue to claim what you do about non-response.... maybe that is a coping mechanism? then one does not have to grapple with data/ facts....
 
Last edited:
Top