Posted on 12/13/2004 2:48:24 PM PST by swilhelm73
OK, I think I get it now. Would the Turing Machine and Maxwell's Demon also count?
Some of the more far-out people in my area (rhetoric of science) tend to view all scientific expressions and equations as "giving names to things we don't know." I don't think that's tenable.
I don't consider it tenable either. I tend to argue that our equations and other forms of scientific expression are cognitive extensions, and possibly even (this really tends to raise hackles in any crowd) evolved features, or exaptated from other cognitive traits which have have been selectively evolved. As RA said earlier, both the ability to do science and the drive to do it seem to be innate human traits.
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt, "Citizenship in a Republic"
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
"Not anymore than A2 + b2 = c2."
This is a stunningly poor analogy.
We know exactly what a and b are physically. We further know that they are the only factors influencing c. And we have a darn good understanding of geometry.
The Drake equation is an assumption, no more, no less, unlike The Pythagorean Theorem you mention.
N = N* fp ne fl fi fc fL
The first two factors are measurable. The next two potentially measurable in the future, though non trivial to ascertain. The rest are, as mentioned, wild assumptions. And as yet another flaw, there is little reason to believe that this equation contains all of the important factors involved in such a determination, even as mere assumptions.
For example, does galactic location make a difference? One would think so, though again this is an assumption. Older stars and those near the galactic center would be by terran standard less likely to harbor life. Should there not be an N1, N2, N3, ... Nn for each generation of star? And also an Nc, Na, No for stars near the center, in the arms, and "other" in our galaxy?
And frankly we know exactly one case of life, let alone intelligent life, developing. The effort to draw conclusions with such a limited data set is bound to fail. Or, to take a reasonable comparison, the Drake Equation is rather the equivalent of studying but one human being and deriving a set of equations explaining all human behaviour.
Cool. WOW!!! A science fiction story I did not read. LOL! :-)
I went back and read my post! Sigh! I need to proof read more. I was in an awful hurry. My grammar stank in this one. :-(
:-)
It is the belief in the theory that Elvis is still alive that leads to belief in global warming.
Thanks! :-)
After reading my own post again, I think I should proofread further. LOL!
My father had that on his desk for years! :-) Thanks for posting it. Brought back fond memories.
I don't have a problem with your argument. However, if we don't look we will never know.
IMHO, SETI is a win-win situation. If we are alone (or other races cannot be detected), that in itself is extremely profound. If we are not, that is equally profound. So SETI in either case will give us a better understanding of our place in this universe.
I guess we are mostly in agreement then, as I have no philosophical problems with SETI. While it is unlikely to produce results in the near future, this is hardly an argument for not trying, with the caveat, of course, that private money is being spent.
But I think the author's larger point is an important one. The Drake equation is assumption presented as science, and while it is largely unimportant itself, it has become a dangerous pattern in science as a whole, especially politically charged areas like environmental science.
Take for example the relatively recent media, and *scientific*, scaremongering on both ALAR and DDT.
Just finished reading it - terrific!
Recently watched a "round table" discussion on DW-TV where the American expressed his dismay at the recalcitrant behavior of President Bush while the other panel members laughed.
His critical statement was, "at least 99.9% of the world's scientests believe that pollution causes global warming, I can't understand why Mr. Bush doesn't react."
I have even more respect for President Bush now.
Blast from the Past (last of the night)
Aliens Cause Global Warming
Caltech Michelin Lecture | January 17, 2003 | Michael Crichton
Posted on 12/11/2003 4:44:39 PM EST by Dan Evans
Edited on 01/02/2004 9:36:11 PM EST by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1038662/posts
I’ve always felt that this was the most elloquent speech in defense against bad science and global warming alarmism. RIP Mr. Crichton.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.