Is SETI Science

The Pixie

Well-known member
So so important to re-iterate the flawed OP:
Why is SETI so important to you, Martin?

In the last few weeks you have made just nineteen posts on CARM, all on this issue. It is the only topic you post about nowadays after you lost so badly on various evolution/ID issues in the other thread. Is that because you think you might actually have a chance here?

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.
What other outcomes?

Seems to be this would be a great place for Martin to actually say what those outcomes are. For example, does he think finding a signal, then deciding it has a natural origin is an outcome? It is not, for the simple reason that SETI will continue.

As an analogy, imagine you are looking for your keys. Either you find them, or you give up looking. If you come across some other keys, and think at first they are the keys you are looking for, that is not an outcome - it is just a blip on the way. You find the keys, realise they are not the right ones, and continue with the search.

Same for SETI. They mistakenly detect a signal, realise it is not what they are looking for and move on. It is not an outcome.

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....
Martin seems to think that making a mistake makes something falsifiable, and hence science.

He has no idea what "falsifiable" actually means in science.

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!"
Not sure what Martin is pretending I am saying, but my point is that for something to be science is requires more than merely looking for something.

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?
Great, so we agree that looking for something is not necessarily science.

So what makes SETI science? The science behind the 'looking' apparently. That is, he is saying it is science, because it is science! ood argument, Martin.

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
Martin has missed the point entirely.

I did not say looking for something cannot be science, I said "looking for something does not make it science". Looking for something may be real science, and it may not. We both agree looking for socks is not science, so this would seem to be trivially true to me.

Apparently not to Martin.

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)
The blunder is, of course, on Martin's part.

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....
Of course - I have never said otherwise. I am certainly not saying the reason SETI is not science is because it is looking for something.

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
Says the guy with the SETI obsession.

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:
Wow, he spotted that. Congratulations, Martin. I noted that back in August, but I guess some people can be a little slow on the uptake.

I disagree with the blog post. That is pretty much the gist of the OP. I was arguing against it., not using it to support my position. I think from this we can conclude how much Martin has actually read and understood of this debate...
 

Martin23233

Active member
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)
The Pixie said:
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.
The Pixie said:
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.
The Pixie said:
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
The Pixie said:
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.


It is sad to see posters like the Pix try their best to look intelligent but get embarrassed over and over... if she really was a PHd like she claims.. well it likely would be different
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
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)
So here is the challenge: Martin is going to show (a) how badly I miss the mark and (b) how supposedly dishonest I am.

Bear that in mind as we go though his post. Do you think he will do either? I am guessing no, but let us take a look.

I back in January said:
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.
Have I badly missed the mark here? Was I dishonest? No. All I did was ask a question.

A question Martin fails to answer. Does he think searching for a prime number is science?

For the record, I do not. The point of asking the question - which he quotes from post #94, and I wrote way back on 12trh January - was to establish what Martin considers to be science.

I am guessing Martin thinks the search for primes is science. But he is so clueless about, well, anything, he cannot support that claim or even dare to say what his position is.

Have I been dishonest in asking him if he thinks searching for prime numbers is science? Of course not!

Have I badly missed the mark in asking him if he thinks searching for prime numbers is science? Of course not!


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.
Martin is pretending I think the search for primes is science. I do not.

My position is that maths is separate to science. I pointed this out to him very early in our discussion on the other thread, and we had a long debate about it (see, for example, here). He lost, of course. But the point is, he should know my position on this.

Science uses maths, but maths is not science. Maths is not about the real world; maths is abstract. It can be applied to the real world, but it can as readily be applied to a made up world, say with two or four spacial dimensions. Science requires testing in the real world to support its claims. Maths is proved internally without reference to the real world.

This is a fundamental difference that Martin does not get.

Have I been dishonest in saying maths is not science? Of course not!

Have I badly missed the mark in saying maths is not science? Of course not!


I back in January said:
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.
I can only go on what Martin says. I asked this question in response to this:

"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."

Looks to me like Martin thinks science is about repeatedly testing - and so I asked him to confirm.

Have I been dishonest in asking Martin to clarify his position? Of course not!

Have I badly missed the mark in asking Martin to clarify his position? Of course not!


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
And yet Martin stated "they keep on testing. That is what science is about." I quoted that in post #94, the post he is responding to, so when he states I failed to provide any evidence, that is simply not true.

In fact it looks to me like it is Martin who is being dishonest. It is Martin who has badly missed the mark.

Yes actually !
The reality is that Martin dislikes me because I destroyed all his arguments on the other thread. I proved beyond all doubt that he is clueless about evolution, and that his own position is a contradictory mess of front-loading and creationism. Time and time again he lost our discussions, eventually resorting to character assassination because he had nothing else left.

Just look at this last post of his. No arguments, just him asserting he is right, and making various false accusations about me. This is what Martin is reduced to because he has lost every argument.

at least Inertia's opinion made valid and coherent points.
And his pride is too great for him to ever admit to himself that anything I say is either valid or coherent.

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.
The conclusion - which he choses to ignore - is that SETI can never be falsified. From Inertia's post:

"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."

Do you think that that is a valid opinion, Martin?

Do you think that that is a valid opinion when I say it, Martin?

Have I been dishonest in asking Martin to explain his opinion? Of course not!

Have I badly missed the mark in asking Martin to explain his opinion? Of course not!


It is sad to see posters like the Pix try their best to look intelligent but get embarrassed over and over... if she really was a PHd like she claims.. well it likely would be different
Here is a great example of his character assassination again. There is no argument, no substance. Just Martin's bitter ranting.

Remember, Martin said he was going to show where I was dishonest, but all he ever did was make that assertion. He never actually showed any evidence because there is none. Martin wants so desperately to believe I am dishonest, that I am just wrong, but the truth is that that is not the case, and so at every turn he fails to support his nonsense.

All he has is empty bluster and false accusations.

It is interesting to look at Martin's posting history over the last few months.

28/Dec 30/Dec 2 days later 1/Jan 2 days later 2/Jan 1 day later 5/Jan 3 days later 12/Jan 7 days later 22/Jan 10 days later 17/Feb 26 days later 16/Mar 27 days later

Back in December, Martin thought he was on to something, and he was posting every day or so. Early January he realised he was losing, and only came back to CARM every week or so. Now he is losing so badly, it is about four weeks before he dare show his face around here!

See you next month, Martin!
 
Top