[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.

[r9etb]

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.

Crichton does, however, dispute it. He flatly states that the Drake equation is meaningless, and then concludes that SETI -- that search for discernable signals -- is "a religion." He has equated the Drake Equation with the tools and methods of the search.

The question is whether such signals actually exist, which is what the DRAKE equation was all about (estimating the probability of those signals existing).

Which is exactly what I stated above. However, if Crichton is correct that the Drake Equation is meaningless, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that ... the Drake Equation is meaningless. It says nothing about the probability of success, nor the tools and methods of SETI.

So I think it is unfair to say that the DRAKE equation has nothing to do with SETI.

Again, as I noted above, it's merely a statement of chances. SETI is not the Drake equation, Crichton's claim to the contrary notwithstanding.