Because you can find patterns in anything, even random bit streams. Patterns have no meaning unless they conform to a theory of causation. In other words, a picture of Mickey Mouse formed by cumulus clouds is not scientifically significant unless you have a theory that predicts its occurrence. After the fact prediction is not very compelling.
Science is about formulating productive hypotheses, guesses that conform to current knowledge and which predict evidence yet to be found. The exact nature of these predictions depends on the subject matter, but without prediction, it isn't science.
I am not really into the details of SETI, but I would assume SETI is based on a null prediction, namely that no known natural phenomenon produces a narrow band radio signal at the frequencies being monitored. Null predictions are pretty common in science.
Well, while I agree with the analysis, I do not think it implicates the generality or specificity of your hypothesis to a great degree. The measure is whether you make successful predictions where success isn't a foregone conclusion, or not--not how general your supposition is.
Science is about formulating productive hypotheses, guesses that conform to current knowledge and which predict evidence yet to be found. The exact nature of these predictions depends on the subject matter, but without prediction, it isn't science.
I concur.
I am not really into the details of SETI, but I would assume SETI is based on a null prediction, namely that no known natural phenomenon produces a narrow band radio signal at the frequencies being monitored.
As I have indicated, SETI's charter is broader than hunting for modulated narrow band carriers.
Null predictions are pretty common in science.
That there are no known phenomena that exhibit the behavior of modulated narrow band carriers is more like a data point and/or a research tool, than it is an hypothesis under investigation, in this case.