Posted on 09/29/2007 6:12:27 PM PDT by Tahts-a-dats-ago
This is where the game of pass-the-parcel winds up in a dead end--as, eventually, it must. A scientific theory is a falsifiable rule that relates cause to effect. If you push Dawkins and company far enough, you find yourself more or less where Aristotle was more than 2,000 years ago in stating his view that any chain of cause-and-effect must ultimately begin with an Uncaused Cause. No matter how far science advances, an explanation of ultimate origins must always--by the very definition of the scientific method--remain a non-scientific question.
(Excerpt) Read more at thefreelibrary.com ...
All such probability calculations require data that we do not have.
Then the Drake equation isn’t even a SWAG?
(So much so that I “captured all the keystokes.” :^)
***Been There, Done That, BTDT... ;-) Thanks for your efforts. I usually do that sort of thing for old articles — they aren’t likely to be showing up on the web soon.
I think it is a valid equation. Filling in the variables requires more than a little guesswork.
We do have more information about the probability of planet formation than we did 15 years ago. That’s a start.
Then what probability to you ascribe to the Drake equation for this figure, and why?
The range appears to be from 10^-2 to 10^-720. If I interpolate that result, I end up with about 10^-350 or so. That means SETI would be a waste of time and resources.
How could you deduce, from my posts, that I assign any usable value to the Drake equation?
As for SETI, it is relatively cheap, provides raw data useful for other kinds of research, and is largely funded by contributions.
How could you deduce, from my posts, that I assign any usable value to the Drake equation?
***From this post, just a little bit upstream:
“I think it is a valid equation. Filling in the variables requires more than a little guesswork.”
So, what values would you put in, or as you say, “filling in the variables”? In particular the one about the chances of life evolving by chance, and then the corresponding one that has life surviving the evolutionary process.
I thought I made it clear that the equation requires information we don’t have.
Pressed for a WAG, I’d say the probability for life is fairly high, given a galaxy of stars. I’d guess the probability for something like human life to be pretty low. The second estimate is based on the assumption that the timing of asteroid impacts has a significant influence on the direction of evolution. If you don’t accept evolution, this has no meaning. If you do, it is still speculation.
I am as wary of atheists proving their religion with evolution as ID/Creationists making believe they are scientific. (The former give fuel to the latter.) So I find this refreshing:
Accepting evolution, therefore, requires neither the denial of a Creator nor the loss of the idea of ultimate purpose. It resolves neither issue for us one way or the other.
But evolution has been empirically associated with materialism for a reason: It undermines some traditional religious notions. Contemplating a Creator who acts through a process as multi-layered as evolution tends to lead us to see the spiritual world in an increasingly abstract light. The risk to religion is that this accommodation can begin an inexorable process that leads to a theology so attenuated that it becomes vanishingly close to materialism.
Fortunately, it is possible to thread the intellectual needle: to defer to scientific explanations for non-ultimate physical processes, while still remaining within the central Judeo-Christian tradition.
In the Beginning there was God. God created the Universe. He seems to have used natural processes and natural laws to bring it about and sustain it. “Magic” seems entirely unnecessary for the formation and maintenance of the universe.
The equation requires info we do not have, and yet the SETI project moves forward on the basis of its original projections of 1/100.
As far as I can tell, it’s the only time scientists have been peer reviewed and had their feet put to the fire over this set of assumptions, and it’s because they were asking for money.
If what you say is true, the SETI project had no scientific grounds for getting any money in the first place. That 1/100 figure was wishful thinking. Revising their numbers with peer reviewed, scientific methodology would discredit their project.
If they were truly interested in furthering science, they would update their Drake equation variables and let the chips fall where they may.
SETI isn’t about predicting the existence of extraterrestrial life. It’s about using rather inexpensive means, using equipment that does double duty, collecting data that can be analyzed by other projects.
You seem to have something against the project other than the waste of money.
I suppose this gives me the answer, post #33 from you.
But not as large as 1^700, which is the probability of life emerging without intervention.
33 posted on 09/30/2007 12:02:06 PM PDT by js1138
But it does not make sense to me. If it’s a typo, where you mean 10^700 rather than 1^700 then your subsequent posts are contradictory. If you’re being facetious, I missed the sarcasm tag. Maybe you could just clarify what you really mean for us.
My understanding of the Drake equation is that the original estimates generated something on the order of 10^3 planets within our galaxy. But that was with a factor that included a 10^-2 “probability of life emerging without intervention” (to use your words), whereas your own estimate and others’ appears to be more on the order of 10^-700, give or take 20-50 EXPONENTS. That would generate an estimate from the Drake equation that there would be one planet to find in 10^500 GALAXIES, which is a very very small chance indeed. Historically, it is considered an impossibility when a chance is 10^50.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505570/posts
SETI and the Cosmic Quarantine Hypothesis (Where is Everybody?)
Astrobiology Magazine ^ | October 17/05 | Steven Soter
SETI isn’t, but the Drake equation is. And SETI is based upon the Drake equation. Good science would compel these guys to update their original assumptions.
You seem to have something against the project other than the waste of money.
***Yes. It looks like junk science to me, with a chance of success less than 10^-50, a.k.a. Impossible. It is a waste of money & time. If those numbers are rational.
What bullshit values did you plug in to arrive at you precise probability?
Here, you tell me.
I was using 1% for #4, one thousand years. Let’s just start with something.
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/drake/default.asp
Using your assumptions, the Drake Equation yields an answer less than one, implying that the Milky Way galaxy is inhabited by only one communicating civilization: ours. In contrast, Frank Drake’s assumptions yield an estimate of 10,000 such civilizations.
Try again?
1. How many stars with suitable conditions for creating habitable planets are formed annually in our galaxy? (The typical estimates for this number range from five to 20.)
2. In percentage terms, how many of those stars actually have planets? (The recent discovery of extrasolar planets has led astronomers to raise their estimates of this number. The typical range is 3 percent to 50 percent.) %
3. In those planetary systems, what is the average number of worlds in the “habitable zone,” where water exists in liquid form? (Please enter zero or a positive number.)
4. On what percentage of those habitable worlds does life actually arise? (In light of recent studies of Mars and Europa, a moon of Jupiter, some astronomers argue that this number is close to 100 percent.) %
5. In percentage terms, how many of those life-bearing worlds give rise to intelligent life? %
6. In percentage terms, how many of those worlds with intelligent life develop technologies that release detectable signs of their existence into space? %
7. On average, for how many years do such civilizations release detectable signals into space? (This ranks as one of the most controversial numbers in the calculation. In recent years, some astronomers have grown more optimistic that the only such civilization we know about — our own — will be able to avoid blowing itself into oblivion anytime soon. Please enter zero or a positive number.)
If you could read, you would have noitced that I said — uncontradicted — that the Drake equation requires information that we don’t have.
People spend time and money on all kinds of searches that have nearly zero chance of success: ESP, ghosts, UFOs, Noah’s Ark, living dinosaurs, non-biogenic petroleum, the winning lottery ticket. Such inquiries are part of what we are. Curious.
If you could read, you would have noitced that I said — uncontradicted — that the Drake equation requires information that we don’t have.
***That’s the nature of the Drake equation. Most people understand this. So I’m trying to get at that 10^700 figure you posted.
People spend time and money on all kinds of searches...
***That’s fine, it’s a bunch of junk science. I find some junk science fascinating. But when they’re asking for money from the guvmint or even the general public, they’ve crossed into that political realm that FR is so focused on.
If the SETI project is being defended as good science, then let’s see those presumptions. Just like you wanted to see my presumptions, using unsuitable language for this forum, that’s how strongly you felt about it.
SETI has, for most of its history, been privately funded. Any government grants have been for the development of technology used in other applications.
You obviously have an intense rectal itch about something.
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.