You just "know" it is not true... It is a shame you cannot support your opinion in anyway. Ho hum.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.
Again, Martin, you illustrate your ignorance of what "falsifiable" means.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....
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?
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.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 makes SETI science, but searching for a sock is not? After months of discussing this, why can you still not say?
So your argument is that Wiki says it is science, therefore it is science?From Wiki:
extraterrestrial life, for example, monitoring electromagnetic radiation for signs of transmissions from civilizations on other planets.
Scientific investigation began shortly after the advent of radio in the early 1900s,"
Can you confirm, before we explore that further?
What you are missing here is that it is not merely looking for something that makes it science.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)
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.
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.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
This seems trivially obvious to me.
To be absolutely clear, posting on CARM is definitely not science.The Pixie first claims that posting on CARM is not science..now the Pixie backtracks and wants to know why?
I asked you why you think it is not science to try to get you to think. I failed. It was a forlorn hope.
I absolutely was fishing for clarification on what you think constitutes science.Hmmmm seems like either the pixie forgot what they posted earlier of is just fishing for clarification on what constitutes science.
So you are saying me posting on CARM is not science because you label it a "fallacy"? Is that the best you have?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.
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 real question is: what qualifies something as science?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 a question you have danced around for months, because - let us be honest here - you have no clue.
At last! We might be getting somewhere...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
Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method.
So to be clear, you think this is science?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.
"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.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
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.Wow.... says the person who thinks getting a wrong answer on a test should be compared to falsifiable. just wow.
Okay.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?
Now talk me through how SETI use the scientific method.