Is SETI Science

[Electric Skeptic]

What I wrote could mean that it is not natural, ie. that apparently technology and intelligence are involved.

To address your question better. The technology seems beyond what we would use, eg. the bulbs bulging out the stalks to make the patterns. TYpically were people to go out and make these patterns, they would use the plank and rope method that some hoaxers claim to use.
Another is that there doesn't seem to be much point in humans doing this. There are so many crop circles.
Another is the orbs being seen.
There is a lot of information on crop circles out there.

Whoever Is Responsible For This Crop Circle Is On A Weed-To-Know Basis

'The geometry and detail are quite spectacular. It is a work or art'

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk

Very interesting one - but I don't see what points to an extra-terrestrial origin. The fact that it's the logo of a bong manufacturer would seem to point the other way - that it's a joke by the hoaxster.

I don't remember the clip where I saw an interview about crop circles and one of the people talked about the Mesoamerican crop circle showing up.
Here is a picture of a Mesoamerican style crop circle in the UK from 2009:

Aztec Bird In Crop Circle

On June 14, 2009, a crop circle was reported in Barbury Castle, near Wroughton, Wiltshire. The natural phenomenon or hoax coincides with the representation of an Aztec bird. From our Maya archives …

pakalahau.wordpress.com

I don't know if it's the same one.

Again, what about it points to an alien origin?

 

[rakovsky]

Very interesting one - but I don't see what points to an extra-terrestrial origin. The fact that it's the logo of a bong manufacturer would seem to point the other way - that it's a joke by the hoaxster.

Again, what about it points to an alien origin?

It was the coincidence between the Mexican researchers coming and the appearance of the crop circle. It was not a random phenomenon, probably. As I recall, the crop circle was not very far from the researchers' meeting place.

Conceivably, human hoaxers could have known that the Mexican researchers were coming and made a crop circle for them. But I believe that some crop circles are ET in origin, due to different factors like the complexity of the patterns, the fact that UFOs exist, the sightings of orbs making crop circles, crop circles appearing in places where people are not seen and it would take a major amount of time to make the circles, crop circles appearing for a long time in England (before WW2 at least), the difficulty of making the complex circle designs of some circles with just hoaxers with boards and planks, the anomalous nature of the circles like the bulging of the stalks, different scientific measurements made at the sites, etc. etc. etc.

This is about the scientific measurements:

Straightening out a mystery

www.baltimoresun.com

This Baltimore Sun article theorizes, based on scientific measurements:

Microwaves -- or some other heating agent -- are striking at the plants, heating up the internal moisture in the plant stems the same way your home microwave heats up the moisture inside your food. Levengood's hypothesis is that the microwaves are coming from a highly charged plasma system -- essentially electrified air. The northern lights is one example of a plasma system, sunspots are another.

Straightening out a mystery

www.baltimoresun.com

Here is John Rand's 19th century account of what sounds like crop circles:

¤ c i r c l e m a k e r s ¤

 

[Martin23233]

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?

LOL you seem to miss a lot of key points when reading. I gather your 'self-proclaimed' PhD did not come in Lit or English. I love your your responses have nothing to do with what was typed in... for example your making things up again
How ignorant some can get can anyone believe PIX? saying "SETI is science because it might make an error"... wow.. how silly can one get.
Maybe it's time to put the Pixie's silliness on ignore.... trying to have a real logical discussion but all the pix can muster is that silliness. sad.

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.

Yeah Pix...that is what science is about. If the results of a test come back... they test it to confirm validity or non. Science is about testing...thought you understood that much.

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!

Wrong again Pixie...you keep falling down when you try to show your 'education'. Your weak attempts to mischaracterize what has been said is funny and actually humorous read...for example Pixie tries to say " if something can be objectively wrong, then it is not science. " I am sure most here believe your statement to be incorrect... basically false... and very anti-science. WHY Does Pixie not like science?

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

One would need to understand science first...otherwise one just makes silly Pixie assumptions.

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".

Fancy that Pix....you used sarcasm.... it seems like you use sarcasm more than you do logic or reason....

I am sure everyone else got it.

Just like your self-proclaimed PhD ...

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 pointed out that you normally ask about things you don't grasp... like ID... and SETI is no different. It looks like most all your conclusions about SETI are against modern science and evidence. So, it is funny that when the Pix asks a question about something the Pix does not comprehend we always need to re-shape the question so it can be understood.
For example ..the PIX says SETI is not science. most everyone (even the scientists involved in SETI) call SETI a pure scientific endeavor. The pixie wants to be educated on what the scientific method is now since they can't come up with what it means... no biggie - i'm sure the Pix will google it up later.

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?

Pretty sure you are not anything close to a 'scientist' but maybe we can play games with definitions. if you could not grasp my response about how AI (learning from interaction) could loosely be linked to science then you appear to be a lost cause and in need of some basic 101 classes. Please go back and re-read for comprehension....leave your angst at the door.

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.

Yes the ignorance is obvious to all here.

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.​

As I said in post #36:

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

Ohh lookie here ..Pixie folded shop and finally gave a half-hearted definition of scientific method.... wow... this one is a pretty weak one too... so it makes it much easier to hold Pixie's little hand and walk them through it. this will be fun ( sadly disappointing in the end though is my guess)

Get to it Martin.

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

Boo Hoo Pixie gets to wait a bit longer... maybe if the Pix would of pouted out the same question 12 more times ...

 

[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."

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Yes the ignorance is obvious to all here.

Yes, it is. But it's not The Pixie's.

 

[inertia]

There are any number of discussions of the Drake equation and estimates as to its variables online.

Indeed. This paper* addresses estimates of scientific uncertainties and Fermi's paradox

Their conclusion:

"When we take account of realistic uncertainty, replacing point estimates by probability distributions that reflect current scientific understanding, we find no reason to be highly confident that the galaxy (or observable universe) contains other civilizations, and thus no longer find our observations in conflict with our prior probabilities. We found qualitatively similar results through two different methods: using the authors’ assessments of current scientific knowledge bearing on key parameters, and using the divergent estimates of these parameters in the astrobiology literature as a proxy for current scientific uncertainty. When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe (53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively). ’Where are they?’ — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable. "

- "The Drake Equation is a wonderful way to organize our ignorance."
- "Where is everybody? Enrico Fermi, summer of 1950, Los Alamos Laboratories

I couldn't agree more with their analysis but the authors only gloss over the fact that we do not have any real concepts of what the last four factors for the Drake Equation should be.

___

* Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler, and Toby Ord, “Dissolving the Fermi Paradox,” Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University (June 8, 2018)

..

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Indeed. This paper* addresses estimates of scientific uncertainties and Fermi's paradox

Their conclusion:

"When we take account of realistic uncertainty, replacing point estimates by probability distributions that reflect current scientific understanding, we find no reason to be highly confident that the galaxy (or observable universe) contains other civilizations, and thus no longer find our observations in conflict with our prior probabilities. We found qualitatively similar results through two different methods: using the authors’ assessments of current scientific knowledge bearing on key parameters, and using the divergent estimates of these parameters in the astrobiology literature as a proxy for current scientific uncertainty. When we update this prior in light of the Fermi observation, we find a substantial probability that we are alone in our galaxy, and perhaps even in our observable universe (53%–99.6% and 39%–85% respectively). ’Where are they?’ — probably extremely far away, and quite possibly beyond the cosmological horizon and forever unreachable. "

- "The Drake Equation is a wonderful way to organize our ignorance."
- "Where is everybody? Enrico Fermi, summer of 1950, Los Alamos Laboratories

I couldn't agree more with their analysis but the authors only gloss over the fact that we do not have any real concepts of what the last four factors for the Drake Equation should be.

___

* Anders Sandberg, Eric Drexler, and Toby Ord, “Dissolving the Fermi Paradox,” Future of Humanity Institute, Oxford University (June 8, 2018)

..

I must confess that aside from anything else you've said, I've always been impressed by Fermi's paradox. The most obvious explanation to it is, to me, the distances between stars and, hence, civilizations. Unless someone finds a convenient warp drive, the distances between stars and the amount of time it takes to travel between them will forever make galactic civilizations of the Star Wars or Dune type impossible.

And the most obvious evidence for the scarcity of such civilizations is the failure of SETI.

So IMO civilizations at or higher than our level of technology are relatively rare and even if they were far more frequent, distance would make meeting (much less collaboration) unlikely in the extreme, if not impossible.

 

[The Pixie]

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?

LOL you seem to miss a lot of key points when reading. I gather your 'self-proclaimed' PhD did not come in Lit or English. I love your your responses have nothing to do with what was typed in... for example your making things up again
How ignorant some can get can anyone believe PIX? saying "SETI is science because it might make an error"... wow.. how silly can one get.

There is a level of dishonesty here that I find hard to fathom.

This has to be the most blatant quote-mining I have ever seen. I said "So you are arguing SETI is science because it might make an error?" and Martin has extracted the bit he wants, and then presented it as though it is me arguing that SETI is science because it might make an error.

There is no way this was an error - Martin knows perfectly well what he is arguing and I have been saying I do not think SETI is science for literally months. This is an issue we have discussed ad nauseum across two threads. He definitely knows I think SETI is not science.

And yet here he is pretending I think SETI is science because it might make an error!


The reality is that it is Martin who was claiming SETI is science because it made a mistake.

Post #35: 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........

Post #40 (yes, the same text): 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........

Post #43: ... 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. ...

And so it went on. Again and again Martin used the fact that SETI made a mistake as evidence that it is falsifiable, and hence science. And now suddenly he has realised that is stupid. I his own words: " wow.. how silly can one get." And rather than admit his mistake, he does the only thing a Christian can.

He pretends.

He pretends it was me who said it, not him. To be clear, I feel pretty sure he is pretending to himself. Seriously, there is no way he can imagine anyone else will be fooled. This is just pure delusion.

Ironic that he does this in a paragraph where he accuses me of making things up!

 

[inertia]

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 no

I checked out the Wikipedia article and found reference 152 refreshing.

"But in the case of SETI, negative results are what is expected most of the time, perhaps even forever, regardless of the truth of the central hypothesis.

This raises the question: When will SETI researchers think that enough negatives have been accumulated to reject the hypothesis of existence of other technological civilizations?

If the answer is that such hypothesis can never be rejected, regardless of the empirical results, that pushes SETI uncomfortably close to the status of pseudoscience."

(underline mine)

___

 

[inertia]

I must confess that aside from anything else you've said, I've always been impressed by Fermi's paradox. The most obvious explanation to it is, to me, the distances between stars and, hence, civilizations. Unless someone finds a convenient warp drive, the distances between stars and the amount of time it takes to travel between them will forever make galactic civilizations of the Star Wars or Dune type impossible.

And the most obvious evidence for the scarcity of such civilizations is the failure of SETI.

So IMO civilizations at or higher than our level of technology are relatively rare and even if they were far more frequent, distance would make meeting (much less collaboration) unlikely in the extreme, if not impossible.

( You don't believe? )

There are some that actually get hot under the collar when I tell them that I don't have reason to believe in extraterrestrial sentient, intelligent, technologically advanced species. ( This is not hyperbole. )

I won't forget your respectful response soon.

___

 

[Martin23233]

I checked out the Wikipedia article and found reference 152 refreshing.

"But in the case of SETI, negative results are what is expected most of the time, perhaps even forever, regardless of the truth of the central hypothesis.

This raises the question: When will SETI researchers think that enough negatives have been accumulated to reject the hypothesis of existence of other technological civilizations?

If the answer is that such hypothesis can never be rejected, regardless of the empirical results, that pushes SETI uncomfortably close to the status of pseudoscience."

(underline mine)

___

Not sure that your point is the correct one...since, if we all go by that thinking then why would mathematicians keep looking for the next Prime number and any correlation to all primes? Just because the true science used by the true SETI scientists are not finding any real results yet does not mean that they should just quit. " This raises the question: When will SETI researchers think that enough negatives have been accumulated to reject the hypothesis of existence of other technological civilizations?" Clearly just giving up is not part of the scientific endeavor....since nobody really knows if the very next system could be the one .... or not... so a few failures are all part of science... they keep on testing. That is what science is about.
Your opinion is a valid one but not one shared by most all the scientists behind SETI or even not even involved in SETI. your assumptions that SETI is close to just pseudoscience is not one shared by real scientists and science sites.

 

[Martin23233]

There is a level of dishonesty here that I find hard to fathom.

This has to be the most blatant quote-mining I have ever seen. I said "So you are arguing SETI is science because it might make an error?" and Martin has extracted the bit he wants, and then presented it as though it is me arguing that SETI is science because it might make an error.

There is no way this was an error - Martin knows perfectly well what he is arguing and I have been saying I do not think SETI is science for literally months. This is an issue we have discussed ad nauseum across two threads. He definitely knows I think SETI is not science.

And yet here he is pretending I think SETI is science because it might make an error!


The reality is that it is Martin who was claiming SETI is science because it made a mistake.

Post #35: 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........

Post #40 (yes, the same text): 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........

Post #43: ... 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. ...

And so it went on. Again and again Martin used the fact that SETI made a mistake as evidence that it is falsifiable, and hence science. And now suddenly he has realised that is stupid. I his own words: " wow.. how silly can one get." And rather than admit his mistake, he does the only thing a Christian can.

He pretends.

He pretends it was me who said it, not him. To be clear, I feel pretty sure he is pretending to himself. Seriously, there is no way he can imagine anyone else will be fooled. This is just pure delusion.

Ironic that he does this in a paragraph where he accuses me of making things up!

The Pixie is just another faker... most likely not even a Phd as she claims .. since most of her constructs lack actual educated points. Pix is certainly allowed room for an opinion about SETI but since Pixie can't support that claim then we are just pointing that out - Even the link Pix uses clearly points out that SETI is a valid science.

Now the Pix tries to conflate and confuse and mischaracterize.
She "pretends".....
why is it that Pix can't just openly step up and admit to the science performed by SETI? Clearly it is because the Pix is cornered by the lack of logic Pix tries to use. (yet another example of a lack of education in any scientific field by the 'goatsbeard' Pix). I have to wonder why Pix ever linked a URL that openly states that SETI is clearly a science -
"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."

It does not get any better than this...when one can use the exact link that Pix uses to show just how misguided the Pixie is.

 

[The Pixie]

The Pixie is just another faker...

And still Martin continues with his false accusations. Why is it that he can never give examples of where I have said something that is not true? Because he is just making this up.

Contrast this to Martin, who has has a history of making stuff up. On the "Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?" thread, we had a discussion going on for hundreds of posts, and it was increasingly clear that the truth was not something Martin was that troubled by.

This was the first false accusation, as I recall:

wrong again.. my post clearly stated Thousands (not 100) but maybe you did not read it ... figures...​

do you often misrepresent other's posts? if so why do you misrepresent what others clearly post?​

Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

Here is the first comment in the comments section of the video on You Tube..... Regardless of his views on ID... he was added for his views on A God. but he was heard saying " Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue...

forums.carm.org

The truth, which Martin would prefer us to ignore, is that he said 100s, and I was repeating what he had said.

As you know there are literally 100s of other top scientists that are far far above you mental pay grade (and mine ) that don't believe in dariwnian mechs.... and I can show you a dozen top scientists that have bailed from it in the last few years too. hmmm​

Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

Still you seem to fail to understand falsifiable means. I explained it to you ... and yes evolution is not falsifiable (regardless of your part bird, part worm, part crab, part human thinking that not finding such a creature falsifies it)..... Relativity would be falsified if the orbit of...

forums.carm.org

And not just once:

your assertion was proven wrong. and now you wish to ignore the 100s of leading scientists that don't agree with you.... do you actually read much about counter views or opinions or are do you like making things up like 99% false agenda talking points​

Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

Here is the first comment in the comments section of the video on You Tube..... Regardless of his views on ID... he was added for his views on A God. but he was heard saying " Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue...

forums.carm.org

I appreciate people make mistakes, but when you make an honest mistake, you acknowledge and move on. Martin never did that, because he was still in this fantasy world where he is always right.

In fact, he later admitted he said hundreds, even as he continued to pretend I had misrepresented him (the post has since removed by mods, so I will not link).

still running from something? you bet I once posted 'hudreds" but I also posted thousands and my link showed thousands...​

From there it just went downhill, and his posts were increasingly littered with claims that were simply not true.

• All those times he claimed to have answered question he had not.
• All those times he pretended I dodged a question, and yet could not say what questions I had dodged. He could not because it was not true; I carefully answered every single one of them.
• A couple of posts he outright falsely accusing me of lying - now removed by mods.
• He repeatedly pretended I said evolution was proven, despite me being very clear that that is not the case.
• More specifically, he repeatedly claimed I said goatsbeard proves evolution (eg "The Pixie thinks that evolution is proven by a plant changing color or size... or reproduction capabilities... but it just remains the same type of plant it always was.. 'goatsbeard'"); I never said that.
• He repeatedly pretended I said not finding mermaids proves evolution (eg "The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution ..."). Again, I never said that.
• So many times on the other thread he pretended I said that SETI does not user science (eg "The Pixie can't bring himself to admit what scientists believe that SETI is using sound science to try to detect non-earthly signals / intelligence for the last 70+ years..."), despite me repeatedly telling you otherwise, and indeed my original statement on the subject was "it uses science but it is not science".

Note that when I accuse Martin of being dishonest, I can back that up with actual examples and quotes. All Martin has is wishful thinking.

I find it rather sad that he feels he justified in this behaviour - and that he thinks he can get away with it. To be frank, it says a lot about Christians around here that none of them will call him out on it, but no surprise there.

... most likely not even a Phd as she claims .. since most of her constructs lack actual educated points.

What does that even mean?

Have you found out what "falsifiable" means, Martin? Do you have a clue what the scientific method is, Martin?

Of course not.

Pix is certainly allowed room for an opinion about SETI but since Pixie can't support that claim then we are just pointing that out - Even the link Pix uses clearly points out that SETI is a valid science.

I pointed out why I disagree with it.

All Martin has offered is that it uses the scientific method, but he has no clue how it actual does that. Or what the scientific method actually is. I keep asking him:

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

He keeps evading because he has no clue.

Now the Pix tries to conflate and confuse and mischaracterize.
She "pretends".....

Exactly what am I supposedly conflating?

Exactly what am I supposedly confusing?

Exactly what am I supposedly mischaracterising?

Martin cannot say. He has no actual examples of me doing any of these things. All he has is false accusations and wishful thinking.

why is it that Pix can't just openly step up and admit to the science performed by SETI?

Because I do not think it is science. Duh,

Clearly it is because the Pix is cornered by the lack of logic Pix tries to use. (yet another example of a lack of education in any scientific field by the 'goatsbeard' Pix).

What logic? Certainly nothing Martin has presented.

All Martin has offered is that it uses the scientific method, but he has no clue how it actual does that. Or what the scientific method actually is. I keep asking him:

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

He keeps evading because he has no clue.

 

[The Pixie]

Not sure that your point is the correct one...since, if we all go by that thinking then why would mathematicians keep looking for the next Prime number and any correlation to all primes?

Do you think looking for prime numbers is science?

Just because the true science used by the true SETI scientists are not finding any real results yet does not mean that they should just quit. " This raises the question: When will SETI researchers think that enough negatives have been accumulated to reject the hypothesis of existence of other technological civilizations?" Clearly just giving up is not part of the scientific endeavor....since nobody really knows if the very next system could be the one .... or not... so a few failures are all part of science... they keep on testing. That is what science is about.

You think repeated testing makes something science?

Or is this just more nonsense you will later deny, like getting something wrong makes it science or using fancy technology makes it science?

Your opinion is a valid one ...

So inertia's opinion that SETI is valid, but my opinion - which is the same - is not. Interesting...

 

[inertia]

Not sure that your point is the correct one...since, if we all go by that thinking then why would mathematicians keep looking for the next Prime number and any correlation to all primes?

It's been said that mathematicians take pride in their search for equations that have no physical applications. Mathematicians are a bit quirky that way.

Just because the true science used by the true SETI scientists are not finding any real results yet does not mean that they should just quit.

I'm very pro-exploration. Quantitatively testing their hypotheses has been exceedingly problematic, unlike astrobiologists that have an existing framework for future exploration parameters.

" This raises the question: When will SETI researchers think that enough negatives have been accumulated to reject the hypothesis of existence of other technological civilizations?" Clearly just giving up is not part of the scientific endeavor....since nobody really knows if the very next system could be the one .... or not... so a few failures are all part of science... they keep on testing. That is what science is about.

This pursuit feels similar to the belief in luminiforous aether, which was a topic of considerable debate in scientific history. Models existed and extensive effort went into trying to detect its properties from 1881 - 1930. Unfortunately, results consistently provided a null result. Aether enthusiasts attempted to explain these null results with aether drag or motionless aether hypotheses to no avail. Still, the tests did not disprove aether's existence. We simply have not found any detectable properties of aether by any experiment we're proficient of achieving.

Fast forward to today, we understand that electromagnetic waves (light) do not depend on any sort of medium to propagate through at all.

Your opinion is a valid one but not one shared by most all the scientists behind SETI or even not even involved in SETI. your assumptions that SETI is close to just pseudoscience is not one shared by real scientists and science sites.

Scientists are people that have wide-ranging beliefs too. They understand that their scientific models (hypotheses) are ultimately judged when faced with cold-hard experimental fact.

From my post above:

"Evidence is all that matters and is even more important than opinion, even by scientists."

That does not prevent scientists from keeping their beliefs wholly enact.

___

 

[Martin23233]

Let's expose how badly the Pixie misses the mark... and how dishonest she really is. ( a real PhD would likely have avoided such inconsistencies)

Do you think looking for prime numbers is science?

Too funny that the Pix claims to be a Phd yet does not understand the scientific field of mathematics. The pixie attempts to make things up again and aSSumes that just one field (the study of Primes) is a science in and of itself. Yes mathematics is indeed a scientific study and the study of Primes is an aspect of mathematics.

You think repeated testing makes something science?

Hilarious.... yet another dishonest representation and example of the Pix just making things up. I have never said that repeated testing makes ... Repeated testing does not 'makes something science" like you are attempt to push. repeated testing is certainly a part of what science is about.

Or is this just more nonsense you will later deny, like getting something wrong makes it science or using fancy technology makes it science?

LOL i really do get a kick out of your 'interpretations and mischaracterizations'. typical failed premise response. you keep failing to provide any evidence that I ever said such... ( lol 'getting something wrong makes it science'... you are one special person there. ) I did get a kick out of you claiming that 'fancy technology' many weeks back ... I guess you were so embarrassed by it you tried to tag me as the one who first stated such silliness

So inertia's opinion that SETI is valid, but my opinion - which is the same - is not. Interesting...

Yes actually ! at least Inertia's opinion made valid and coherent points. (you have to use the full sentence in context and not be a word plucker).. Inerta's opinion was that negative results could go on forever... and that was a valid opinion to question what then?. the point being was really a question of when scientists might throw in the towel... Well given that it would be impossible with our current technology to scan the entire universe one could assume that as long as funding remains.... never. Especially, given the fact that they could find another positive result tomorrow...or next year .... that then then would need to be retested to confirm.

 

[Martin23233]

It's been said that mathematicians take pride in their search for equations that have no physical applications. Mathematicians are a bit quirky that way.

You bet (I have met some really quirky bio-chemists too), but nonetheless, mathematics is broadly considered a scientific field.

I'm very pro-exploration. Quantitatively testing their hypotheses has been exceedingly problematic, unlike astrobiologists that have an existing framework for future exploration parameters.

Agreed - but so far, they have had no real issues quantitating their results as they compare them to their hypothesis ...and then determine it they support the hypothesis or they don't. Personally, I feel that the quantum field exposes the most problematic hypothesis to quantitatively test.

This pursuit feels similar to the belief in luminiforous aether, which was a topic of considerable debate in scientific history. Models existed and extensive effort went into trying to detect its properties from 1881 - 1930. Unfortunately, results consistently provided a null result. Aether enthusiasts attempted to explain these null results with aether drag or motionless aether hypotheses to no avail. Still, the tests did not disprove aether's existence. We simply have not found any detectable properties of aether by any experiment we're proficient of achieving.

interesting.... sort of sounds like the 'Dark Energy' search.

Fast forward to today, we understand that electromagnetic waves (light) do not depend on any sort of medium to propagate through at all.



Scientists are people that have wide-ranging beliefs too. They understand that their scientific models (hypotheses) are ultimately judged when faced with cold-hard experimental fact.

most all scientists have bias... some very heavily. Sadly there are many famous examples of flawed hypothesis and doctored results. Seems that some like being able to pay their mortgages more than paying attention.

From my post above:

"Evidence is all that matters and is even more important than opinion, even by scientists."

That does not prevent scientists from keeping their beliefs wholly enact.

___

 

[The Pixie]

Let's expose how badly the Pixie misses the mark... and how dishonest she really is. ( a real PhD would likely have avoided such inconsistencies)

What inconsistences? Let us see what Martin is making up this time...

Too funny that the Pix claims to be a Phd yet does not understand the scientific field of mathematics.

So here is the first supposed inconsistency. It is, however, founded on Martin's belief that maths is a science. I do not think it is. I will acknowledge that opinions vary on this, but to me maths is a tool a science uses, but is not itself a science. The reason for that is that it is not empirically supported - it is based on its own internal proofs and noy on real world evidence.

See here:

Math is not Science!

Occupy Math is a member of the College of Physical and Engineering Sciences at the University of Guelph. The fact that the Department of Mathematics and Statistics is in this college makes it seem …

occupymath.wordpress.com

Remember, Martin is claiming I am being inconsistent. That is simply not true. I have never wavered from my view that maths is a tool a science uses, but is not itself a science.

The pixie attempts to make things up again and aSSumes that just one field (the study of Primes) is a science in and of itself.

This is simply not true. Once again Martin is putting words in my mouth.

What I did do was ask Martin: "Do you think looking for prime numbers is science?" in response to his apparent claim that looking for primes in science:

"Not sure that your point is the correct one...since, if we all go by that thinking then why would mathematicians keep looking for the next Prime number and any correlation to all primes?"

I do not think looking for primes is science, and therefore I challenged him on that issue, asking him to clarify.

Yes mathematics is indeed a scientific study and the study of Primes is an aspect of mathematics.

So Martin just objected to me supposedly saying looking for primes is science (which I did not), and yet in the next sentence tells us that actually it is!

Again, remember this is supposedly Martin pointing out my inconsistencies, and yet in doing so he only highlights his own.

You think repeated testing makes something science?

Hilarious.... yet another dishonest representation and example of the Pix just making things up. I have never said that repeated testing makes ... Repeated testing does not 'makes something science" like you are attempt to push.

And yet Martin said:

​

Clearly just giving up is not part of the scientific endeavor....since nobody really knows if the very next system could be the one .... or not... so a few failures are all part of science... they keep on testing. That is what science is about.​

I really have no idea what Martin thinks science actually is. Nor does Martin. I can only go on what he says. When he says science is about keeping on testing after failures, well, I assume that is what he thinks.

But please note that I asked the question. I asked if that is what he thinks. Compare to Martin:

The pixie attempts to make things up again and aSSumes that just one field (the study of Primes) is a science in and of itself.​

That is not a question - he is not asking me to clarify. He is just putting words in my mouth. Just making something up that is not true.

Again, remember this is supposedly Martin pointing out my inconsistencies. When have I been inconsistent here?

LOL i really do get a kick out of your 'interpretations and mischaracterizations'. typical failed premise response. you keep failing to provide any evidence that I ever said such... ( lol 'getting something wrong makes it science'... you are one special person there. )

Back on page two, Martin was very clear that the fact that SETI got it wrong supported his claim that SETI is science:

Is SETI Science

Is gathering data a scientific activity?

forums.carm.org

Post #35: 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.​

​

Post #39: 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....​

The truth is that this was Martin's position back then. There was no mischaracterisation on part part, merely back-tracking on your part. That is to say, Martin is being inconsistent.

I exposed his nonsense for what it is, and now he wants to pretend he never said that. Sadly for him, I can go back to page two and find the quotes.

Again, remember this is supposedly Martin pointing out my inconsistencies. When have I been inconsistent here?

I did get a kick out of you claiming that 'fancy technology' many weeks back ... I guess you were so embarrassed by it you tried to tag me as the one who first stated such silliness

Claiming that "fancy technology" what, Martin?

I said:

Post #15: Why do you think it is? Oh right. They use fancy technology.​

I was using "fancy" sarcastically to once again expose his nonsense for what it is. He previously claimed:

Post #13: So SETI is obviously a scientific endeavor ... using science ....​

He was attempting to say that the fact that it uses science automatically makes it science. This was a claim he made repeatedly in the other thread - the one he had to abandon because you lost every single discussion over there. Remember that, Martin?

The idea that something is science because it uses science - or fancy technology - is nonsense. I note that Martin has now abandoned that position, so once again this is evidence of his back-tracking, his own inconsistency

Again, remember this is supposedly Martin pointing out my inconsistencies. When have I been inconsistent here?

Finally, I want to remind people of the issue Martin keeps avoiding. All Martin has left is that SETI uses the scientific method, but he has no clue how it actual does that. Or indeed what the scientific method actually is. I keep asking him:

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

He keeps evading because he has no clue.

 

[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."

 

[inertia]

So so important to re-iterate the flawed OP:

...

Too much, to big, and - unconvincing for the reasons we discussed previously

___