[r9etb]

Your link to Crichton's talk was interesting, but he lost me right here:

Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

The problem with this is that SETI and the Drake Equation are not equivalent. The Drake equation provide a very crude measure of the the chances that SETI will be successful ... and that's the extent of their similarity.

SETI, by contrast, is based on the testable hypothesis that it's possible for radio telescopes to pick up discernable artificial signals ... which has nothing whatever to do with Drake's equation.

That's a pretty fundamental error ... it does not suggest that his more general scientific conclusions are any better.

[AaronInCarolina]

That's a pretty fundamental error ... it does not suggest that his more general scientific conclusions are any better.

This is apparently what you actually dispute:

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry.

Crighton apparently believes that SETI's credibility was based, at least in part, upon the DRAKE equation, and therefore was an act of faith rather than science.

SETI, by contrast, is based on the testable hypothesis that it's possible for radio telescopes to pick up discernable artificial signals ... which has nothing whatever to do with Drake's equation.

It is hardly a hypothesis that "it's possible for radio telescopes to pick up discernable artificial signals." I don't think anyone would dispute that. The question is whether such signals actually exist, which is what the DRAKE equation was all about (estimating the probability of those signals existing). So I think it is unfair to say that the DRAKE equation has nothing to do with SETI.