Is SETI Science

[The Pixie]

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.

You just "know" it is not true... It is a shame you cannot support your opinion in anyway. Ho hum.

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....

Again, Martin, you illustrate your ignorance of what "falsifiable" means.

If a kid does an exam, and gets a question wrong, and his answer is subsequently marked as incorrect, is that science? Think carefully...

How is that different to SETI realising they made a mistake?

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?

What is your point? You appear to be saying it is science because they use fancy technology, and yet you are adamant that that is not your argument.

What makes SETI science, but searching for a sock is not? After months of discussing this, why can you still not say?

From Wiki:

Search for extraterrestrial intelligence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"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,"

So your argument is that Wiki says it is science, therefore it is science?

Can you confirm, before we explore that further?

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)

What you are missing here is that it is not merely looking for something that makes it science.

Science often does involve looking for something. But looking for something is not always science.

All cats are animals. But not all animals are cats. This is fundamental logic, Martin.

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

But the point is that there is more to science than just looking for something. Lots of activities involve looking for something. Not all of them are science.

This seems trivially obvious to me.

The Pixie first claims that posting on CARM is not science..now the Pixie backtracks and wants to know why?

To be absolutely clear, posting on CARM is definitely not science.

I asked you why you think it is not science to try to get you to think. I failed. It was a forlorn hope.

Hmmmm seems like either the pixie forgot what they posted earlier of is just fishing for clarification on what constitutes science.

I absolutely was fishing for clarification on what you think constitutes 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.

So you are saying me posting on CARM is not science because you label it a "fallacy"? Is that the best you have?

Why is it a fallacy, Martin? Why is not not comparable? You cannot say, can you? You really have no clue about what science actually is.

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.

The real question is: what qualifies something as science?

This is a question you have danced around for months, because - let us be honest here - you have no clue.

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

At last! We might be getting somewhere...

Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method.

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 to be clear, you think this is 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"​

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

But you said when SETI got something wrong, that showed it was falsifiable. How is that different to a kid putting 5 as the answer to 2+2? They both got something wrong - they both had their claim falsified. But you seem to think when it happens with SETI, that makes is science.

To be clear, my position is that neither are examples of fallibility.

Wow.... says the person who thinks getting a wrong answer on a test should be compared to falsifiable. just wow.

I never said that. Once again you are obliged top put words in my mouth to score cheap points. I guess that means you have realised you are losing.

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?

Okay.

Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method.

 

[rakovsky]

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.

I am trying to understand what you meant in the first half of the paragraph above. It sounds like you are saying that attitudes were different than the examples that I gave historically, like Komodo dragons and gorillas. As far as I understand, Society did not have much opinion on whether the dragons and gorillas were real in the 19th century in terms of a consensus. But there were some Skeptics who did not believe that these creatures existed. In my historical write up, I emphasized the Skeptics. So when you say that attitudes we're different from the examples that I gave, even for hardened Skeptics it sounds like you mean that attitudes were open minded or supportive about SETI, including among Skeptics. And Congress's funding shows this. But in fact, funding SETI's belief by funding SETI did not yield new discoveries, so the funding would have been better spent elsewhere than in SETI.

I think that there were Skeptics who disbelieved in Seti's beliefs, comparable to Skeptics of cryptoids. SETI's congressional funding was canceled in just less than a year, according to the NASA article. This reflects lack of hypothesized results, but also lack of support and patience.

To get back to the main point, it sounds from this description that SETI was performing science: It had a hypothesis about ETs sending radio waves, it collected radio waves to test the hypothesis, this created a collection of data. The data collection is ongoing AFAIK decades later and the results have not strongly and clearly met the hypothesized results. We have some of the collected data that has been theorized to be possibly meet the hypothesis, but you noted a problem in the reliability of the mathematical model for evaluating the results.

From htttps://cires/colorado.edu

View attachment 2503

___

I am a bit open minded about things labeled "Pseudoscience" and about things labeled establishment "Science," because at one time, gorillas might have been classed as Pseudoscience, whereas Bloodletting and Lobotomy were part of establishment Science. This reflects that I try to be openminded, but I am also a bit cynical or skeptical about Establishment teachings.

One challenge with the fact cards is Science v Pseudoscience in terms of belief/subject vs method. In terms of subject, some might say that the subject of gorillas vs Stark Trek wookies is Science v. Pseudoscience. However, isn't it better said that Science v Pseudoscience relates to an issue of method? eg. Going on a trip to Africa to search for gorillas would be science, but brainstorming about the characteristics of wookies would just be at most, forming a hypothesis without testing it?

- In the fact cards above, one says "Often uses scientific language." This can be said about both real Science and Pseudoscience.
- One card says that Science is testable and falsifiable. So for example, Ed thinks that there is a physical 4 foot unicorn in his closet. This sounds like Pseudoscience. But since the hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, the card would make it sound like Science. This brings us back to the issue of subject matter vs. activity. The fact card about testable and falsifiable seems to be talking about subjects, not method, since subjects are testablevor not testable.

Also in line with the testable and falsifiable card, to give a counter example, the ancient Greeks and Romans theorized that across the "impassable" Atlantic there was a land with people living there. They labeled them Antipodes, because they were on the other side of the earth from Eurasia. They theorized that they were dark skinned from the sunshine, maybe like at the Equator.

Later, other Europeans argued against this idea. Augustine said that the Antipodes could not exist because humanity began in the Old World and people could not get from the Old World to those undiscovered lands. For centuries, the topic of people in the lands across the Atlantic became verboten and looked down on in educated civilized Europe. It was de facto nontestable and nonfalsifiable for the medieval Mediterranean European establishment, who did not have enough technology, knowledge, resources, or perhaps willpower to sail across the ocean and return. For them, the topic was put in what we could call the category of Pseudoscience.

Later on, the vikings did discover the northern Americas, and educated Europe did get information on this discovery but it didn't seem to have been nearly as big a deal in Europe as Columbus' voyage became.

So you could have a belief (eg. the native people of the Americas exist), but no realistic way to test or falsify it. (Columbus' route, the vikings' route, and the Bering Strait route were all unknown and practically too hard or far for Mediterranean educated Europeans.) As a result, would the existence of the Americans/Antipodes be put in the realm of Pseudoscience? In that case, there could be literally Pseudoscientific factually real subjects.

Click for an illustration:

The Antipodes in Derision

“Cosmas lived in the sixth Christian century. In the cut here reproduced from his Topography, he ridicules the idea of a round earth with people on the under side whose heads hand downwards. The views of Cosmas as to the existence of an antipodal people had defenders throughout the medieval...

etc.usf.edu

The Antipodes were also called the Antipodeans and Antichthones.

 

[Martin23233]

You just "know" it is not true... It is a shame you cannot support your opinion in anyway. Ho hum.

LOL...you were just embarrassed again.... in your FLAWED OP you claimed: that SETI is an either/or thing.... specifically here is what Pixie actually stated in post 1:
"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."

So just to let it sink in how wrong you really are and how I DO support my opinion:
1-SETI detects a signal and it is indeed world shattering
2-SETI detects a signal and it is Falsified ....not so 'world shattering'
3-SETI gives up
4-SETI never gives up
Bonus points for anyone that can name a 5th outcome (making it 3 outcomes Pixis missed)

Seems I can support my opinion with facts...how about You Pix? eh?

Again, Martin, you illustrate your ignorance of what "falsifiable" means.

If a kid does an exam, and gets a question wrong, and his answer is subsequently marked as incorrect, is that science? Think carefully...

How is that different to SETI realising they made a mistake?

Sad that I have to keep explaining basics to a 'self proclaimed PhD' . the two concepts are not related. SETI falsification of a signal result is not the same as The Pixie answering 2+2=5 as both being wrong. I'll let you cipher it out but one takes a deeper review, which most likely involves a scientific method to re-analyze the results and re-test , re-sample and then review other possible outcomes..along with other rigorous control processes to either prove or re-falsify the previous results. THE OTHER is just an objective check to ensure the student picked the wrong answer...nothing scientific about it and most likely no review even needed...no expertise needed...just the ability to objectively mark Pixie's answer as incorrect. The Pixie is again playing games and trying to conflate two entirely different items - one would expect that a 'self-proclaimed Phd' would know that falsification of a result by a true scientific endeavor like SETI is not in the same field as missing an answer on a test....Unless of course the Pixie can show that taking tests is just as a scientific endeavor as searching for fossil links or searching for a viral cure...etc. ( I'm sure The Pix will try to salvage the dumpster fire...can't wait)

What is your point? You appear to be saying it is science because they use fancy technology, and yet you are adamant that that is not your argument.

Are you drinking? Did you miss the sarcasm about 'fancy'? you used 'fancy' tech ...and I ran with your silly and petty attempt to make some type of point that maybe you could have ...but fell flat on.

What makes SETI science, but searching for a sock is not? After months of discussing this, why can you still not say?

After months of explaining it to you I hope that you will finally just grasp the following simple sentence that explains why ( i will type more slowly this time..that may help a self-proclaimed Phd):
The methodologies used by SETI are tested and cutting edge technologies that are performed by degreed scientists using the scientific meathod.
The Pixie looking for lost socks/keys or credibility uses none of the aforementioned.

I get your hopes that someone..somewhere will jump in and try to salvage your lost cause that SETI is not a scientific endeavor.... but you really should of taking a clue by the thread you yourself linked to.... that actually shows why SETI IS a scientific endeavor. you probably ignored WIKI too.... you seem to keep isolating yourself with the what the experts are all saying.... which is fine and all.... certainly we have many examples of where the experts have been wrong....but it typically takes other experts to show this.... this really is not the case here - not even close.

So your argument is that Wiki says it is science, therefore it is science?

Can you confirm, before we explore that further?

Please re-read my comments and link about what Wiki says before making statements you already know the answer to.

What you are missing here is that it is not merely looking for something that makes it science.

Finally you seem to be grasping what everyone has been telling you.

Science often does involve looking for something. But looking for something is not always science.

It's a New Year's miracle (if the Pix really means it )

All cats are animals. But not all animals are cats. This is fundamental logic, Martin.

And 2 + 2 =4 Pixie...that is fundamental and objectively true Pixie.

But the point is that there is more to science than just looking for something. Lots of activities involve looking for something. Not all of them are science.

This seems trivially obvious to me.

You are now repeating yourself....but to no point.... oh well... I enjoy your humor...so I'll read on.

To be absolutely clear, posting on CARM is definitely not science.

Finally you grasp this. one step at a time and we'll get you there.

I asked you why you think it is not science to try to get you to think. I failed. It was a forlorn hope.

You seem to have selective memory - I fully explained why 'you/Pixie' posting on CARM is not a science.... though...it could be if the Pix was a learning AI Chat Bot.... but you seemed to not grasp that. no biggie you admitted as much I guess when you said you don't know much about AI

I absolutely was fishing for clarification on what you think constitutes science.

you give yourself too much credit

So you are saying me posting on CARM is not science because you label it a "fallacy"? Is that the best you have?

Please save the conflated mischaracterization and re-read my response.

Why is it a fallacy, Martin? Why is not not comparable? You cannot say, can you? You really have no clue about what science actually is.

LOL take a breath... and just re-read for comprehension... your accusations are silly and assumptions.... just relax a bit and it will come to you

The real question is: what qualifies something as science?

This is a question you have danced around for months, because - let us be honest here - you have no clue.

you keep getting embarrassed and the best you can do is to keep ignoring answers.... and accusing... let's be honest here Pix... you have no clue...so you stoop to accusations and ignoring.

At last! We might be getting somewhere...

Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method.


So to be clear, you think this is 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"​

But you said when SETI got something wrong, that showed it was falsifiable. How is that different to a kid putting 5 as the answer to 2+2? They both got something wrong - they both had their claim falsified. But you seem to think when it happens with SETI, that makes is science.

To be clear, my position is that neither are examples of fallibility.


I never said that. Once again you are obliged top put words in my mouth to score cheap points. I guess that means you have realised you are losing.


Okay.

Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method.

Too funny coming from a 'self-proclaimed' PhD who can't even grasp the scientific method now needs it to be explained... Maybe the Pix can ask one of the 100s of degreed scientists ? Maybe the Pix can just save the embarrassment and rely on the technical blog they opened the OP with and just accept their findings that : "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."

Before I explain how SETI uses the scientific method... can you explain what you know about the scientific method? because if you don't understand what the scientific method is ... you won't grasp any of what I tell you. (just like ID... you don't mis-understand what ID is and you want me to answer a question about based on your mis-understanding.... does not work that way - why waste my time with someone who is bent on misrepresenting and conflation etc....)

So Pixie...since I have been exposing you and answering your questions... why not answer just one of mine for once before I respond to yours:
We would all love to see how much the Pixie knows about the scientific method ( hint... just save yourself more embarrassment and pull a quote from a valid source).... but it will help lay the ground work for answering your question "Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method."

 

[Martin23233]

So so important to re-iterate the flawed OP:

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:

Search for extraterrestrial intelligence - Wikipedia​

en.wikipedia.org
"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 not

now for the Kicker... the OP tries to offer up a link to support that SETI is somehow not a science: which blows up in their face when one finally reads the conclusion:

"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."

 

[rakovsky]

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



___

It is nice writing to you, because you come across as thoughtful.
My understanding is that in SETI's hypothesis, either ETs would deliberately send radio waves to earth to contact us, or else their civilizations would emit radio waves in general, and then we would be able to pick them up.

After decades looking for the radio waves, we officially haven't gotten waves that match a clear picture of ET communication, just rather some blips that we don't know what to make of. This is the data results step of scientific methodology.

Next, we should refine or reconsider the hypothesis. If there were ET Civilizations, would we actually pick up their radio waves?

1. - One problem that I can think of is that the radio beam might need to be directed straight exactly at us. If the wave was emitted in a slightly different direction, maybe we would not get the radio wave. The farther away our planet might be, the harder it might be to get a straight radio wave directionally, like the difficulty of aiming an arrow at a dot 1 feet away vs. 5,000,000 feet away.
2. - Another problem could be whether the strength of a radio wave decreases over space.
3. - Another problem could be whether we would be be holding out our receiver at the right point in time to receive it. For example, if the radio wave was emitted in 4000 BC, maybe earth would get the radio wave at 3500 BC or at 20,000 AD.
4. - Another issue could be whether we would be able to interpret and recognize the radio signals if we picked them up. This refers to what I said about the blips that we don't know what to make of.
5. - Another issue could be whether they would be blocking radio waves to earth in keeping with the giant zoo park hypothesis.
6. - Another could be that they are not advanced enough or alternately, that UFOs and extraterrestrial visitors are real, but are technically not from other planets in our universe. For example, a being from another plane of existence or another universe could visit earth in a UFO, but its radio waves from its homeland would not be entering our universe or directed at our planet in accompaniment with the UFOs.
7. - Another could be whether the ETs would want to communicate with us. Earth could be like a giant zoo park.
8. - Another explanation for the lack of signals could be that they use methods instead of radio waves to communicate with us or each other, such as other energy pulses, crop circles, or telepathy.

I imagine that at some point in the past, some civilization arose on another planet and emitted radio waves as part of its civilizational development. But I don't know enough about radio waves to know if Factors #1-4 could be the case. I would be inclined to guess that all of the above factors could be at least partly true.

For example, would the ETs prefer to make their presence on earth inescapably obvious, like by landing on the white house lawn in a metal disclike vehicle and make a press conference? They would have had the option of have done something like that centuries ago. Or instead, if they were watching humanity throughout the centuries of humanity's development, would they prefer to be like a skilled wildlife park ranger who minimizes direct interactions?

My guess is that the blunt frontal European (re)discovery of the Americas, by Columbus, led to a major impact on the mentality of European society indirectly. It may have indirectly have led to the Protestant Reformation. The Americas were discovered by him in 1492, and in 1517, Luther announced his 95 Theses in Wittenburg. Luther's Sola Scriptura idea was that the Bible was the master of all writings and teachings, not Catholic Tradition. If a teaching couldn't be justified in the Bible, then it was not legitimate. While his exposition of Sola Scriptura was not technically practically correct, it appears, by his own practical standards (he did in fact affirm things from Tradition not explicitly in the Bible), his Teaching did emphasize some more "real" or foundational truth than what was being taught in Europe. In his wake, Protestantism took on a more materialist form that we might identify with modern "Scientific" models, with Calvin rejecting the literal Presence in the Eucharist and praying with relics as "superstition." Just as the scientific establishment and worldview might have been blown apart by the Discovery of the Americas, the worldview of Europe might have been indirectly drastically affected as well.

UFOs landing on the White House lawn for a Press Conference could be like Columbus' ships arriving in the Americas, but with us being the Native Americans, in effect. The social effect on Native American society was extreme. Up to that point, only the Mesoamericans had major written literature, for example. No one in the Americas rode horses. Probably there was some limited llama riding in South America. Native Americans did have some good skills, don't get me wrong, like knowledge of special herbs.

 

[rakovsky]

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.

So, then SETI "does science", to put it colloquially.

I don't want to keep debating this, it's so simple, like fighting over whether 6 is the same thing as half a dozen.

Why is the second [the conclusion of giant condors existing] 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 conclusion (giant condors exist 5 times bigger than known ones) does not reasonably follow from the data search results.

I want to finish with the "Is SETI Science?" debate. It feels so unproductive, it's like pulling hair out.

 

[Lion IRC]

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'.

Yes, there's an important distinction between that vague word "science" and the more specific term "scientific method".

Observation. Repeatability. Empirical data. Falsification. Verification.

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.

I agree this is oversimplification but essentially it meets the basic idea.

If we were using a microscope, and instead of the words "matching socks", we were looking for matching DNA, and if we found what we were looking for, that might (tentatively) falsify the hypothesis that matching socks don't exist.

 

[rakovsky]

Before I explain how SETI uses the scientific method... can you explain what you know about the scientific method? because if you don't understand what the scientific method is ... you won't grasp any of what I tell you. (just like ID... you don't mis-understand what ID is and you want me to answer a question about based on your mis-understanding.... does not work that way - why waste my time with someone who is bent on misrepresenting and conflation etc....)

Hi Martin.
It might be a little interesting to talk with you.

One challenge with investigating ID scientifically is that the Designer in this case is a supernatural being. In contrast, SETI deals with material phenomena like radio waves. The SETI hypothesis is that there is a life form in the universe. Life in our universe would be a natural subject, even though the nature of "life" itself seems a bit paranormal if put within a Materialistic frame, eg. "What is Life" and why should "Life" exist if the only thing real is matter, which by natural would seem to be inanimate if taken alone?

I think that Intelligent Design is probably true. If I came across a complex, functioning machine in a park, I would imagine that someone made it instead of it arising naturally. The earth and universe have order, complexity, functioning. Hence, it is evidence for me favoring a Designer.

There are some weaknesses with this line of reasoning however.

One is that there are natural phenomena that could be compared to "machines" in nature, like volcanoes. Yet the volcanoes appear due to other natural causes like the earth's crust moving. It's not necessarily the case that each volcano is deliberately intended and designed by an intelligent being, therefore. Rather, the higher being could be behind the phenomena of volcanoes in a general way.

Another issue is that we are dealing with a Supernatural intelligence, so how would we, being in the natural world, be able to use normal scientific methods to test whether there is a Supernatural Intelligence designing the universe?
-- One way to "discover" God is Revelation, whereby the Supernatural Intelligence would choose to reveal itself/Himself to us. However, this would be the decision of the Intelligence, and since it/He is in the Supernatural realm, then the revelation it seems might not be something that we could directly test or reveal. In other words, getting the Intelligence to DIsplay/Reveal Himself might not be like moving a pancake on a plate - something that we can directly test and experiment with under our own control. One person could pray with faith and get one result, and another person of relatively the same spirituality could pray with faith for relatively the same thing and get a different result. Do we really understand God who is above us like we would understand pancake recipes?
-- Another way that we could test this is to hypothesize about how the world would look if there was a divine intelligence, and then test to see if such phenomena and features matching this hypothesis exist.

• So for example, one might theorize that animals or humans would tend to act "morally". However, Christianity does not look at animals in terms of "morality", and what one interprets as "morality" could just be the animals surviving more effectively when they respect each other more often than not. Or one could like for complexity in nature.
• But complexity could arise without Intelligence, like a volcano arising naturally, or a rainbow or crystal having complexity, without someone necessarily making it that way. You as a sandbox designer could randomly pick water and sand in random amounts and throw them randomly in a sandbox and get a certain "order" that you did not expect from your randomness, like water and sand forming in layers. That is, something with order could be caused by you without your intention.
• Another hypothesis is that there is more complexity than there would be if there was no creator. But we don't have other worlds to test this against, eg. worlds made intentionally and worlds made unintentionally.

Basically, a difficulty in testing Intelligent Design seems to stem from the fact that we would be trying to test the actions and existence of a being in another realm, and particularly in a higher realm. It's one thing for a zookeeper to check how many animals there are in his zoo and whether they are performing certain actions, and another thing for animals in a zoo to check how many zookeepers there are and what actions they take that affect them.

 

[inertia]

It is nice writing to you, because you come across as thoughtful.
My understanding is that in SETI's hypothesis, either ETs would deliberately send radio waves to earth to contact us, or else their civilizations would emit radio waves in general, and then we would be able to pick them up.

After decades looking for the radio waves, we officially haven't gotten waves that match a clear picture of ET communication, just rather some blips that we don't know what to make of. This is the data results step of scientific methodology.

Next, we should refine or reconsider the hypothesis. If there were ET Civilizations, would we actually pick up their radio waves?

Let's talk about this.

The assumption that other civilizations could develop radio communication requires penetrating a considerable cognitive barrier where a sentient, intelligent, and technologically advanced species is at a particular state of intellectual development. The communication variable, fc, in the Drake Equation presented above covers this concept and its inclusion presumes that the mediocrity principle is true.

Mediocrity principle: Homo sapiens, sapiens is not an extraordinary species whatsoever where other technologically advanced species have been likely duplicated on billions of other planets throughout the universe.

What's unavoidable are the highly specific and essential physical and biological preconditions before the emergence of simple single-celled life. Even if these complex conditions exist on a planet, they must be sustained for enough time in order for more complex lifeforms to develop. Clearly, the preconditions for "primitive life" must occur before the existence of sentient, intelligent life, and the required chemical processes are far from trivial on any planetary platform, especially to later sustain more complex life. With regard to life's history on planet Earth, there is no reason to expect that sentient life is a fundamental outgrowth of later complex, multi-cellular life at all.

1. - One problem that I can think of is that the radio beam might need to be directed straight exactly at us. If the wave was emitted in a slightly different direction, maybe we would not get the radio wave. The farther away our planet might be, the harder it might be to get a straight radio wave directionally, like the difficulty of aiming an arrow at a dot 1 feet away vs. 5,000,000 feet away.

The total radiated power of broadcast radio is generally spherical or omnidirectional ( i.e. it's transmitted in all 4*pi steradians ). That said, there are directed energy applications for radiofrequency devices and the precision would be incredible indeed.

1. - Another problem could be whether the strength of a radio wave decreases over space.

Yes. This is even true if a planet were within the Hubble sphere ( 10^31 cubic light-years ).

1. - Another problem could be whether we would be be holding out our receiver at the right point in time to receive it. For example, if the radio wave was emitted in 4000 BC, maybe earth would get the radio wave at 3500 BC or at 20,000 AD.

Yes, and its strength would be significantly diminished.

...

No more time for now...

___

 

[inertia]

Yes, there's an important distinction between that vague word "science" and the more specific term "scientific method".

Observation. Repeatability. Empirical data. Falsification. Verification.



I agree this is oversimplification but essentially it meets the basic idea.

If we were using a microscope, and instead of the words "matching socks", we were looking for matching DNA, and if we found what we were looking for, that might (tentatively) falsify the hypothesis that matching socks don't exist.

Rhetorical question: When my antivirus application "scans" for viruses is it conducting science?

( There is only one correct answer to this question.)

___

 

[Lion IRC]

Computer Science is a thing apparently.
But no, I don't think a machine can do science. A machine does what it's told.

 

[Martin23233]

Yes, there's an important distinction between that vague word "science" and the more specific term "scientific method".

Observation. Repeatability. Empirical data. Falsification. Verification.



I agree this is oversimplification but essentially it meets the basic idea.

If we were using a microscope, and instead of the words "matching socks", we were looking for matching DNA, and if we found what we were looking for, that might (tentatively) falsify the hypothesis that matching socks don't exist.

I very much agree.... and that is why most professional sites that deal with SETI discussions believe SETI is a valid scientific endeavor that uses the scientific method.

 

[Martin23233]

Hi Martin.
It might be a little interesting to talk with you.

One challenge with investigating ID scientifically is that the Designer in this case is a supernatural being. In contrast, SETI deals with material phenomena like radio waves. The SETI hypothesis is that there is a life form in the universe. Life in our universe would be a natural subject, even though the nature of "life" itself seems a bit paranormal if put within a Materialistic frame, eg. "What is Life" and why should "Life" exist if the only thing real is matter, which by natural would seem to be inanimate if taken alone?

I think that Intelligent Design is probably true. If I came across a complex, functioning machine in a park, I would imagine that someone made it instead of it arising naturally. The earth and universe have order, complexity, functioning. Hence, it is evidence for me favoring a Designer.

There are some weaknesses with this line of reasoning however.

One is that there are natural phenomena that could be compared to "machines" in nature, like volcanoes. Yet the volcanoes appear due to other natural causes like the earth's crust moving. It's not necessarily the case that each volcano is deliberately intended and designed by an intelligent being, therefore. Rather, the higher being could be behind the phenomena of volcanoes in a general way.

Another issue is that we are dealing with a Supernatural intelligence, so how would we, being in the natural world, be able to use normal scientific methods to test whether there is a Supernatural Intelligence designing the universe?
-- One way to "discover" God is Revelation, whereby the Supernatural Intelligence would choose to reveal itself/Himself to us. However, this would be the decision of the Intelligence, and since it/He is in the Supernatural realm, then the revelation it seems might not be something that we could directly test or reveal. In other words, getting the Intelligence to DIsplay/Reveal Himself might not be like moving a pancake on a plate - something that we can directly test and experiment with under our own control. One person could pray with faith and get one result, and another person of relatively the same spirituality could pray with faith for relatively the same thing and get a different result. Do we really understand God who is above us like we would understand pancake recipes?
-- Another way that we could test this is to hypothesize about how the world would look if there was a divine intelligence, and then test to see if such phenomena and features matching this hypothesis exist.

• So for example, one might theorize that animals or humans would tend to act "morally". However, Christianity does not look at animals in terms of "morality", and what one interprets as "morality" could just be the animals surviving more effectively when they respect each other more often than not. Or one could like for complexity in nature.
• But complexity could arise without Intelligence, like a volcano arising naturally, or a rainbow or crystal having complexity, without someone necessarily making it that way. You as a sandbox designer could randomly pick water and sand in random amounts and throw them randomly in a sandbox and get a certain "order" that you did not expect from your randomness, like water and sand forming in layers. That is, something with order could be caused by you without your intention.
• Another hypothesis is that there is more complexity than there would be if there was no creator. But we don't have other worlds to test this against, eg. worlds made intentionally and worlds made unintentionally.

Basically, a difficulty in testing Intelligent Design seems to stem from the fact that we would be trying to test the actions and existence of a being in another realm, and particularly in a higher realm. It's one thing for a zookeeper to check how many animals there are in his zoo and whether they are performing certain actions, and another thing for animals in a zoo to check how many zookeepers there are and what actions they take that affect them.

Good example and good understanding of ID. Unfortunately there are those that purposely refuse to admit to the basics of ID. Doing so causes them world-view distortions that they don't want to deal with. there are a few minor tweaks I need to make to your comments:
"Supernatural Intelligence" - ID does not pre-suppose that is the case. It only tries to confirm or deny intelligence behind design. For example the designer could be any number of things, aliens.... God... gods.... or even us humans after we learn time travel... any number of options are possible but ID does not correlate anything about the intelligence or the designer.... only that in all examples ever detected, reviewed/inspected of design that does not occur naturally has come from intelligence.
SETI and ID both are using the scientific method to detect a 'signal' if you will of what constitutes intelligence. SETI can't tell us much about that intelligence ( who/what it is , how it formed ) ID can't tell us about that intelligence either. it is the detection of intelligence or design that counts.
It is actually not difficult at all to test ID
Keep in mind that ID makes no assumptions about "the actions and existence of a being in another realm". Mostly because that is not wat ID is about and because one can't use science to test the metaphysical... that is something that science is not able to handle...and falls outside the scientific method. Testing ID only deals with the detection of design and if it naturally occurring or not...if it is not then how complex is the design and is it of human origin..... if not then it can be attributed to an intelligence outside of our understanding and capabilities.
Often times creationists will turn to ID because they were first creationists.... but that is not always the case as there are creationists that outright deny ID. There are also IDists that are not creationists so at it's core... ID is not about God - a simple review of the several leading ID sites prove this out. Sadly there are many that ignore ID sites and just swell with their own quotes from anti-ID sites, which really shows a disingenuous attempt at truth and understanding. Sort of a lazy atheist view on life... rely only of sites that fits their agenda and offer no evidence that supports it.

 

[rakovsky]

Let's talk about this.

The assumption that other civilizations could develop radio communication requires penetrating a considerable cognitive barrier where a sentient, intelligent, and technologically advanced species is at a particular state of intellectual development. The communication variable, fc, in the Drake Equation presented above covers this concept and its inclusion presumes that the mediocrity principle is true.

Mediocrity principle: Homo sapiens, sapiens is not an extraordinary species whatsoever where other technologically advanced species have been likely duplicated on billions of other planets throughout the universe.

What's unavoidable are the highly specific and essential physical and biological preconditions before the emergence of simple single-celled life. Even if these complex conditions exist on a planet, they must be sustained for enough time in order for more complex lifeforms to develop. Clearly, the preconditions for "primitive life" must occur before the existence of sentient, intelligent life, and the required chemical processes are far from trivial on any planetary platform, especially to later sustain more complex life. With regard to life's history on planet Earth, there is no reason to expect that sentient life is a fundamental outgrowth of later complex, multi-cellular life at all.

I think that some simple life forms were found on earth that were anaerobic or were non-carbon based. They were in seemingly inhospitable situations on earth, like deep in soil near volcanoes or something and must have evolved separately from the known carbon life on earth.

This affected my idea of the likelihood of life evolving on other planets in much different circumstances.

There is apparently some life form(s) that survive life in outer space like miniscule Dust Bears.

Didn't scientists claim to find primitive life on Mars or Venus?

Apparently, there are crystals that share characteristics with Life forms, which is curious.

There is a form of evolution that is synchronic, in which two forms of life develop some feature like flying or tool use independently of each other. One example is flight that develops in insects and birds. One is the use of tools by animals like otters.

These Parrots Are the First Animals to Use Grinding Tools

Out of 300-plus parrot species, only a handful have been known to use tools. Now, a new study suggests that the greater vasa parrot (Coracopsis vasa) can be added to that short list.

www.mentalfloss.com

In any case, the UFO phenomenon is real and some intelligence is guiding what appears to be vehicles.

 

[rakovsky]

SETI and ID both are using the scientific method to detect a 'signal' if you will of what constitutes intelligence. SETI can't tell us much about that intelligence ( who/what it is , how it formed ) ID can't tell us about that intelligence either. it is the detection of intelligence or design that counts.
It is actually not difficult at all to test ID
Keep in mind that ID makes no assumptions about "the actions and existence of a being in another realm". Mostly because that is not wat ID is about and because one can't use science to test the metaphysical... that is something that science is not able to handle...and falls outside the scientific method.
1. Testing ID only deals with the detection of design and if it naturally occurring or not...
2. if it is not then how complex is the design and
3. is it of human origin.....
4. if not then it can be attributed to an intelligence outside of our understanding and capabilities.

Martin,
This part could go on a separate forum thread.
I broke down the steps you gave into numbers.
I don't want to repeat myself, but it's one thing to use scientific, "worldly" methods like radio receivers to test for
(A) a subject/object hypothesized to be existing within our natural world like another planet's civilization with radio emitters,
and another thing to use scientific, "worldly"/"earthly" methods to test for
(B) a subject hypothesized to be existing distinct from our natural world like an Intelligent Designer of our universe. You yourself said that we can't use science to test the "metaphysical". I don't know if that's true; Maybe we can use science to test if an animal reached "sentience." Maybe sentience is metaphysical.

In any case, instead of SETI testing for radio signals, you are talking about testing for "intelligence" or "design." OK, so how does one to test for design? Look for "patterns" like raindrops falling in a row? In that case, how do we know that patterns must show design?

Step 1. You said that you would test for whether design is "natural" or not. OK, so we have three things:

1. A pattern of paint that looks like a Renaissance portrait.
2. A pattern of 10 drops of paint in a circular row.
3. A kaleidescope pattern.
4. A mess of paint drops.

None of those seem inherently recognizable as definitely artificially, intelligently, or "naturally"/wildly created.

#1: A portrait could happen randomly due to the principle of 1000 monkeys typing forever on keyboards. This is like when people mistakenly see portraits in burnt toast.
#2-4 in the list can also be random/natural/non-artificial. The 10 drops could have dripped off the sides of a decagon-shaped disc.

However, due to trends in Modern Art, #1-4 could all be artificially designed as well.

This shows how hard it can be to rule out whether something is man-made.

In Intelligent Design, we are talking about practically the entire Universe, so certainly that would not be man-made, unless you want to think about man somehow creating the universe in which he lives.

Step 2. Some things, like rusty tractors, you can rule out as certainly man-made. Occasionally in nature there are objects like giant geo-rock balls (I forget the official name) that some people mistakenly take for man-made objects. Then some other things like volcanoes and waterfalls in the wild are not man made.

Step 3. How complex something is.
OK, some things like a seashell seem pretty complex in a way because they have the Fibonacci sequence. Ecosystems can also be extremely complex. Maybe some aspects of geology can be pretty complex, like volcanoes and their dynamics.

Step 4. Conclusion/Evaluation. You seem to say that if something is not natural, and not human, and not complex, then it gets labeled as "Intelligently designed." Well, like I was trying to say earlier, to decide whether something like complex Natural objects are intelligently designed goes into a realm outside of our Natural world, so to find the proof of design or the proof that it is not "natural" seems hard.

For example, I said that Ecosystems are complex. However, they are also found in nature. So who is to say that an Ecosystem is 100% materialistically Natural or if it is also God-designed? Can it be both, eg. God working through nature like a baker wearing gloves and kneeding dough through his gloves?

Likewise, maybe some geological features in nature like geodes and crystals are complex. Are we to conclude that because they form naturally that they are not also designed by God in some sense?

Intelligent Design theory deals with the theory that an Intelligent Designer like God designed the universe, seeing various examples of complex design in the universe. If you are going to say that geodes, crystals, volcanoes, ecosystems, etc. are natural and not intelligently designed, then it undermines your own hypothesis that complexities found in nature are signs of an Intelligent Designer.

This all reflects the challenge and difficulty that I gave earlier:
The hypothesis is about seeing signs of a Designer of the Natural World, with the signs being in the Natural World, yet we ourselves are in the Natural world and you are talking about using methods of known earthly/worldly science to detect the Designer. If the Designer is outside/above it and not "worldly", then how do we find Him using these natural methods?
The Designer, like the Creator, is distinct from His Design/Creation, so by experimenting and acting solely within the Designed World/Creation, how can we directly show the Creator?

It feels like finding a mirage at best. God is in "the heavens" and made Man in His image. So acting solely within the natural world, we can find God's "mirage" (man), but we don't directly find God unless God enters the world and Reveals Himself, like how Judaism describes God being in the Garden with the First Couple, or how Christianity explains the Incarnation: Christ-God's direct Revelation of Himself to Man.

 

[Martin23233]

Martin,
This part could go on a separate forum thread.
I broke down the steps you gave into numbers.
I don't want to repeat myself, but it's one thing to use scientific, "worldly" methods like radio receivers to test for
(A) a subject/object hypothesized to be existing within our natural world like another planet's civilization with radio emitters,
and another thing to use scientific, "worldly"/"earthly" methods to test for
(B) a subject hypothesized to be existing distinct from our natural world like an Intelligent Designer of our universe. You yourself said that we can't use science to test the "metaphysical". I don't know if that's true; Maybe we can use science to test if an animal reached "sentience." Maybe sentience is metaphysical.

In any case, instead of SETI testing for radio signals, you are talking about testing for "intelligence" or "design." OK, so how does one to test for design? Look for "patterns" like raindrops falling in a row? In that case, how do we know that patterns must show design?

Step 1. You said that you would test for whether design is "natural" or not. OK, so we have three things:

1. A pattern of paint that looks like a Renaissance portrait.
2. A pattern of 10 drops of paint in a circular row.
3. A kaleidescope pattern.
4. A mess of paint drops.

None of those seem inherently recognizable as definitely artificially, intelligently, or "naturally"/wildly created.

#1: A portrait could happen randomly due to the principle of 1000 monkeys typing forever on keyboards. This is like when people mistakenly see portraits in burnt toast.
#2-4 in the list can also be random/natural/non-artificial. The 10 drops could have dripped off the sides of a decagon-shaped disc.

However, due to trends in Modern Art, #1-4 could all be artificially designed as well.

This shows how hard it can be to rule out whether something is man-made.

In Intelligent Design, we are talking about practically the entire Universe, so certainly that would not be man-made, unless you want to think about man somehow creating the universe in which he lives.

Step 2. Some things, like rusty tractors, you can rule out as certainly man-made. Occasionally in nature there are objects like giant geo-rock balls (I forget the official name) that some people mistakenly take for man-made objects. Then some other things like volcanoes and waterfalls in the wild are not man made.

Step 3. How complex something is.
OK, some things like a seashell seem pretty complex in a way because they have the Fibonacci sequence. Ecosystems can also be extremely complex. Maybe some aspects of geology can be pretty complex, like volcanoes and their dynamics.

Step 4. Conclusion/Evaluation. You seem to say that if something is not natural, and not human, and not complex, then it gets labeled as "Intelligently designed." Well, like I was trying to say earlier, to decide whether something like complex Natural objects are intelligently designed goes into a realm outside of our Natural world, so to find the proof of design or the proof that it is not "natural" seems hard.

For example, I said that Ecosystems are complex. However, they are also found in nature. So who is to say that an Ecosystem is 100% materialistically Natural or if it is also God-designed? Can it be both, eg. God working through nature like a baker wearing gloves and kneeding dough through his gloves?

Likewise, maybe some geological features in nature like geodes and crystals are complex. Are we to conclude that because they form naturally that they are not also designed by God in some sense?

Intelligent Design theory deals with the theory that an Intelligent Designer like God designed the universe, seeing various examples of complex design in the universe. If you are going to say that geodes, crystals, volcanoes, ecosystems, etc. are natural and not intelligently designed, then it undermines your own hypothesis that complexities found in nature are signs of an Intelligent Designer.

This all reflects the challenge and difficulty that I gave earlier:
The hypothesis is about seeing signs of a Designer of the Natural World, with the signs being in the Natural World, yet we ourselves are in the Natural world and you are talking about using methods of known earthly/worldly science to detect the Designer. If the Designer is outside/above it and not "worldly", then how do we find Him using these natural methods?
The Designer, like the Creator, is distinct from His Design/Creation, so by experimenting and acting solely within the Designed World/Creation, how can we directly show the Creator?

It feels like finding a mirage at best. God is in "the heavens" and made Man in His image. So acting solely within the natural world, we can find God's "mirage" (man), but we don't directly find God unless God enters the world and Reveals Himself, like how Judaism describes God being in the Garden with the First Couple, or how Christianity explains the Incarnation: Christ-God's direct Revelation of Himself to Man.

Again... ID has nothing to do with the Designer. so your 'Point B' above is not valid. ID makes ZERO assertions about the designer.
ID has already covered the simple and naturally occurring complex designs like snow flake crystals and such ( it is a repeatable naturally occurring 'thing' called closest packing where molecules vibrate themselves into a pattern before being 'frozen'.... like vibrating a box of tennis balls that are tilted on it's edge will always settle in the closest packing order allowed). this and other items you mentioned above like volcanoes and ecosystems are in fact naturally repeatable... and yet it does not deny the facility of a deity.
Again...you seem to go astray from pure ID...when you say " is about seeing signs of a Designer...." that is not what ID is about... ID is about detecting design and then testing if that design could be natural - and if it can't then it was created through intelligence - but stops at that since it can't determine anything more through science.

 

[Martin23233]

Computer Science is a thing apparently.
But no, I don't think a machine can do science. A machine does what it's told.

Agreed.... while fascinating ... AI.... is just another scientific endeavor. Some intellectuals truly believe that AI will indeed prove itself as 'human/ moral / mindful' as us... but in no way can that ever be realized since a machine has no soul...has no mind... and has no morals. LIke you stated it only can do what it is told....even if what it is told is to 'learn' ...it has to be programmed to do so.
Even the best AI still can't land the Winograd schema tests: https://mindmatters.ai/2019/06/ai-is-no-match-for-ambiguity/

A classic : https://mindmatters.ai/2019/12/what-did-the-computer-learn-in-the-chinese-room-nothing/

 

[rakovsky]

Again... ID has nothing to do with the Designer. so your 'Point B' above is not valid. ID makes ZERO assertions about the designer.
ID has already covered the simple and naturally occurring complex designs like snow flake crystals and such ( it is a repeatable naturally occurring 'thing' called closest packing where molecules vibrate themselves into a pattern before being 'frozen'.... like vibrating a box of tennis balls that are tilted on it's edge will always settle in the closest packing order allowed). this and other items you mentioned above like volcanoes and ecosystems are in fact naturally repeatable... and yet it does not deny the facility of a deity.
Again...you seem to go astray from pure ID...when you say " is about seeing signs of a Designer...." that is not what ID is about... ID is about detecting design and then testing if that design could be natural - and if it can't then it was created through intelligence - but stops at that since it can't determine anything more through science.

How do you realistically test if something nonhuman in Nature could not be Natural?

Other than humans, there are also Extraterrestrially-made objects (eg. UFO parts). But it sounds like you are looking for a class of objects or phenomena not made by humans nor by aliens nor by nature. How do you ever discount nature once you've discounted humans and ETs?

Can you give an example of something that fits the category of Intelligent Design of the Universe (other than the Universe itself) that you are talking about?

 

[inertia]

I think that some simple life forms were found on earth that were anaerobic or were non-carbon based. They were in seemingly inhospitable situations on earth, like deep in soil near volcanoes or something and must have evolved separately from the known carbon life on earth.

This affected my idea of the likelihood of life evolving on other planets in much different circumstances.

There is apparently some life form(s) that survive life in outer space like miniscule Dust Bears.

Didn't scientists claim to find primitive life on Mars or Venus?

Sorry but - no. There is no evidence of life on Mars to date and Venus is way too hot (~900 deg. F). A tardigrade is a tough creature, but it too has fundamental limitations.

In my previous response, I wanted to briefly communicate the non-trivial prebiotic boundary conditions required before even the most rudimentary lifeforms can take hold. These basic preconditions are unavoidable and necessary. It's an exceedingly more dramatic step to continue on to single-celled lifeforms. Without an appeal to miraculous interference, the creation of a sentient, technologically advanced, and intelligent lifeform is significantly times more remote than the formation of a planet that eventually produces simple bacteria.

According to an article published by Nature: (Context - origin of life research )

"Achieving the level of specificity required to successfully operate a protocell with genetic apparatus, metabolism, and cell division under strongly denaturing conditions is not easy, certainly when it comes to enzyme-free replication relying on the intrinsic specificity of small molecule interactions."

This explains why, after decades of SETI scans, no new scientific knowledge has ever come from these efforts.

Apparently, there are crystals that share characteristics with Life forms, which is curious.

Crystal formation has geometrical similarities but the similarities to lifeforms diverge rapidly.

There is a form of evolution that is synchronic, in which two forms of life develop some feature like flying or tool use independently of each other. One example is flight that develops in insects and birds. One is the use of tools by animals like otters.

These Parrots Are the First Animals to Use Grinding Tools

Out of 300-plus parrot species, only a handful have been known to use tools. Now, a new study suggests that the greater vasa parrot (Coracopsis vasa) can be added to that short list.

www.mentalfloss.com

In any case, the UFO phenomenon is real and some intelligence is guiding what appears to be vehicles.

Animals are fun.

UAP's are actual objects. The military has its reasons to investigate them and their reasons have nothing to do with imaginary extraterrestrial beings.

___

 

[The Pixie]

LOL...you were just embarrassed again.... in your FLAWED OP you claimed: that SETI is an either/or thing.... specifically here is what Pixie actually stated in post 1:
"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."

So just to let it sink in how wrong you really are and how I DO support my opinion:
1-SETI detects a signal and it is indeed world shattering
2-SETI detects a signal and it is Falsified ....not so 'world shattering'
3-SETI gives up
4-SETI never gives up
Bonus points for anyone that can name a 5th outcome (making it 3 outcomes Pixis missed)

Seems I can support my opinion with facts...how about You Pix? eh?

So you are arguing SETI is science because it might make an error? Or it might go on for ever? Seriously? Do you ever actually THINK before posting?

If SETI declares a result, then later realises it was wrong, that is not an outcome. It will just continue to search. SETI never giving up is not an outcome - that is the process. There are only two outcomes. It gets a positive, or it stops.

Sad that I have to keep explaining basics to a 'self proclaimed PhD' . the two concepts are not related. SETI falsification of a signal result is not the same as The Pixie answering 2+2=5 as both being wrong. I'll let you cipher it out but one takes a deeper review, which most likely involves a scientific method to re-analyze the results and re-test , re-sample and then review other possible outcomes..along with other rigorous control processes to either prove or re-falsify the previous results. THE OTHER is just an objective check to ensure the student picked the wrong answer...nothing scientific about it and most likely no review even needed...no expertise needed...just the ability to objectively mark Pixie's answer as incorrect.

Interesting that - in Martin's world - if something can be objectively wrong, then it is not science. Whose familiar with science might like to thuink about whether relativity is therefore science according to Martin.

While when SETI says it is wrong, that "most likely involves a scientific method". So if it is subjectively wrong in a vague manner, then it is science - in Martin's world!

The Pixie is again playing games and trying to conflate two entirely different items

No, Martin.

I am playing games to get you to think about what makes SETI science. And in the process giving you enough rope to hang yourself. Turns out it is science - in Martin's world - if it is wrong, but not if it is objectively wrong.

Are you drinking? Did you miss the sarcasm about 'fancy'? you used 'fancy' tech ...and I ran with your silly and petty attempt to make some type of point that maybe you could have ...but fell flat on.

What is your point Martin? Do you think you did something clever?

I guess you missed that I was using "fancy" sarcastically. See, I do not think you need "fancy" technology to do science. Newton did not have "fancy" technology, and he still did science. The use of "fancy" technology does not make something science, hence my sarcastic use of the word "fancy".

I am sure everyone else got it.

After months of explaining it to you I hope that you will finally just grasp the following simple sentence that explains why ( i will type more slowly this time..that may help a self-proclaimed Phd):
The methodologies used by SETI are tested and cutting edge technologies that are performed by degreed scientists using the scientific meathod.
The Pixie looking for lost socks/keys or credibility uses none of the aforementioned.

I asked last time:

Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method.​

Have you done that? Of course not! You assert your opinion that they are "using the scientific meathod", but the reality is you have no clue what that even is.

I get your hopes that someone..somewhere will jump in and try to salvage your lost cause that SETI is not a scientific endeavor.... but you really should of taking a clue by the thread you yourself linked to.... that actually shows why SETI IS a scientific endeavor.

And yet you cannot explain it yourself, can you?

You seem to have selective memory - I fully explained why 'you/Pixie' posting on CARM is not a science.... though...it could be if the Pix was a learning AI Chat Bot.... but you seemed to not grasp that. no biggie you admitted as much I guess when you said you don't know much about AI

Right. you seem to think that a scientist posting on CARM is not science, but an AI is. Want to talk me through that, Martin?

you keep getting embarrassed and the best you can do is to keep ignoring answers.... and accusing... let's be honest here Pix... you have no clue...so you stoop to accusations and ignoring.

Really? Can you answer this question?

Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method.​

If not, then it is you who is ignoring me. It is you who is clueless.

Do you remember how this goes Martin? I keep repeating this question again and again in every post and each time you ignore it, you confirm you are clueless about the issue and furthermore that you know you are clueless.

Too funny coming from a 'self-proclaimed' PhD who can't even grasp the scientific method now needs it to be explained...

No Martin, I want you to explain how YOU think SETI uses the scientific method. Hence the question:

Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method.​

Before I explain how SETI uses the scientific method... can you explain what you know about the scientific method? because if you don't understand what the scientific method is ... you won't grasp any of what I tell you. (just like ID... you don't mis-understand what ID is and you want me to answer a question about based on your mis-understanding.... does not work that way - why waste my time with someone who is bent on misrepresenting and conflation etc....)

So Pixie...since I have been exposing you and answering your questions... why not answer just one of mine for once before I respond to yours:
We would all love to see how much the Pixie knows about the scientific method ( hint... just save yourself more embarrassment and pull a quote from a valid source).... but it will help lay the ground work for answering your question "Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method."

As I said in post #36:

The scientific method involves proposing a hypothesis, drawing necessary and bold predictions, and testing those predictions.​

Get to it Martin.

Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method.​