SETi FACT or WOOWOO?

[woodguard]

How is SETI real science, is it based on any real facts. I can understand serving the sky for radio signals. But looking for aliens signals?
I know they use the Drake equation, but is there proof any of it is fact? (A Drake is a male foul?)

I did support SETI Home for years, but then I started to learn to be skeptical about my believes, I went a little farther.

And why are Crop-circle and UFOs bad science but looking for aliens with a radio(even a real big one) good science.

If I duck-taped rabbit ears to my head and ran around my back yard naked look for aliens, is that good science? I would have the same amount of proof.
I used duck-tape for my Drake equation.



Should SETi’s radio show look at themselves on skeptical Sunday? If they did, I don’t know if they would be open Monday.

[baric]

SETI is absolutely science, as opposed to crop circles.

Keep in mind that SETI is not claiming that ETs exist, it is only an organized method of looking for evidence.

Crop circles and UFOs are bad science because they draw an extra-terrestrial conclusion when the evidence does not support it. SETI does not draw any conclusions; it simply gathers evidence.

You could compare it to 18th-century naturalists who spent their lives cataloguing animals species without regard for any overarching conclusions or theories about how species are interrelated.

Or maybe to astronomers who collect spectroscopic data on millions of stars simply because the data will be useful for validating or invalidating theories.

The "Drake Equation" is not really an equation or even a theory. It's simply a tool for focusing on variables that can affect the probability of intelligent life arising.

[peter eldergill]

Don't forget that there is lots of evidence that crop circles are man-made...I've seen a video of a bunch o' folks making one. Beautiful artwork for sure,, but nothing else.

Seti is hoping to find evidence....not some vague piece o' crap, then claim it to be "absolute proof", but looking for credible evidence

Pete

[Van Rijn]

How is SETI real science, is it based on any real facts. I can understand serving the sky for radio signals. But looking for aliens signals?
I know they use the Drake equation, but is there proof any of it is fact? (A Drake is a male foul?)

I did support SETI Home for years, but then I started to learn to be skeptical about my believes, I went a little farther.

We had another fellow (William Thompson) that said much the same thing. There are multiple threads in the "Life in Space" forum where we discussed this. I'd suggest you look over the threads there.

SETI means "Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence." It doesn't assume it exists. Whatever result we get - whether it is decades of nothing or we actually find something - is valuable information.

There simply is so much we don't know. We don't know if ETI exists, but there is no reason to assume that ETI is physically impossible. Why wouldn't we try to look and see?

And why are Crop-circle and UFOs bad science but looking for aliens with a radio(even a real big one) good science.

Crop circles can and are made easily by humans. As for UFOs, if and when someone presented good physical evidence for ETI, it wouldn't be "bad science." Of course, I'm not holding my breath. The key issues are the assumptions, the research, and the evidence: UFO research doesn't have to be bad science, and indeed, there has been good science on the subject that didn't support an ETI origin for UFO events.

If I duck-taped rabbit ears to my head and ran around my back yard naked look for aliens, is that good science? I would have the same amount of proof.
I used duck-tape for my Drake equation.

Now you're just being silly. The Drake equation is not evidence. It is math based on assumptions. It has little utility beyond pure speculation, pick different assumptions, get different results.

Without more evidence we can only guess. SETI is one way to search for evidence.

[jt-3d]

I joined SETI@Home in like July 99, at any rate, a few months into the program. The idea was that they would sweep the sky data three times. That has been done and yet they kept it going by finding new ways to look at the same stuff.

I'd say they took the shot, it didn't pan out. Now they want to keep it going by applying 'new search techniques' to the data. Enough, I'm done with SETI@home. They've looked and found nothing. Cancel the thing and feed the millions of starving kids or something. Time to move on I say. To keep seeking over and over is somewhat woowooesque. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[Ken G]

It may be true that it's hard to admit when an experiment has yielded a null result, but please don't equate it with "feeding the millions of starving kids". You need to do the math on the cost of the SETI project, versus, let's say, the math on having a million Americans driving SUVs. If you feel we need to reapportion humanity's resources, starting at SETI is simply idiotic, there just isn't enough money there to do much of anything.

[Melusine]

I'd say they took the shot, it didn't pan out. Now they want to keep it going by applying 'new search techniques' to the data. Enough, I'm done with SETI@home. They've looked and found nothing. Cancel the thing and feed the millions of starving kids or something. Time to move on I say. To keep seeking over and over is somewhat woowooesque. Nothing to see here. Move along.

The world currently produces enough food to sustain the population. The root of hunger is poverty, and the poverty is a result of economic policies, trade policies, politics, land ownership and such. Taking money from SETI or NASA or the study of the life and death of tsetse flies won't make a difference until the system that creates poverty is changed; it would be a short-term bandaid. People are hungry because they can't buy food; it's a commodity. Now, SETI could be a dead-end, but I'm willing to give it more time. Sometimes you throw out a fishnet for one thing, and something else comes up in the process.

[TheBlackCat]

As near as I can tell, the budget of SETI is $40 million a year. That is $15 million less than the cost of a single Apache attack helicopter. Using the average unit cost, the price of all Tomohawk cruise missiles used during the Gulf War would fund SETI for a little over 10 years.

[jt-3d]

Geez folks, it was a joke, a sad beer induced joke, but a joke nonetheless. I'm not one of those 'cancel NASA to have money to solve all the world's problems' guys. SETI can keep looking for aliens forever as far as I care but my sad little computer resources are now looking for cancer cures since I'm more likely to get cancer than to be abducted by aliens. peace

[Fortunate]

SETI@home will continue as long as people have fun doing it. That won't be me - I would rather support LHC and LIGO.

[The Incredible Bloke]

Couldn't you investigate UFO's and crop circles scientifically? Science isn't just about Subjects X Y and Z it's about a certain way of looking into things.

(for the record I do not think there is anything unusual abuot either crop circles or ufo's)

[Fortunate]

Couldn't you investigate UFO's and crop circles scientifically? Science isn't just about Subjects X Y and Z it's about a certain way of looking into things.

My guess (and it is only that) is that that has already been done to an extent. As was suggested above in relation to SETI, an investigation can eventually peter out if nothing substantive turns up.

[Ken G]

Geez folks, it was a joke, a sad beer induced joke, but a joke nonetheless.

Perhaps we overreacted, but I think TheBlackCat, Melusine, and I don't see anything funny in a million starving kids (I'm sure you don't either, that's not the point). The point is, apportionment of resources is always a crucial issue any policymaker faces, it is the defining measure of government in a nutshell. Science, public works, guns, or butter-- these are always the key decisions. Far from a laughing matter, these are the choices that will determine the fate of humanity. I think we tend to just see the status quo and lose sight of the deeper truths, so that's why I commented, and the same likely goes for TheBlackCat and Melusine I would expect.

[Archer17]

Couldn't you investigate UFO's and crop circles scientifically? Science isn't just about Subjects X Y and Z it's about a certain way of looking into things.

(for the record I do not think there is anything unusual abuot either crop circles or ufo's)

The major problem with properly investigating UFOs is they don't hang around and after-the-fact analysis of anecdotal reports is a fool's errand IMO.

Crop Circles have been studied scientifically with mainstream scientists finding no evidence of unnatural causation. This is disputed by the BLT (Burke, Levengood, Talbott) folks but unless one is willing to buy into ET doing graffiti or unknown energy forces having a fetish for crops (and an artistic talent to boot) I think they are wasting their time.

I'm supportive of S.E.T.I. even though it hasn't produced anything outside of the dubious WOW signal years ago. S.E.T.I. might never pan out but if we don't even try there's no "might" to it at all.

[Melusine]

Geez folks, it was a joke, a sad beer induced joke, but a joke nonetheless. I'm not one of those 'cancel NASA to have money to solve all the world's problems' guys. SETI can keep looking for aliens forever as far as I care but my sad little computer resources are now looking for cancer cures since I'm more likely to get cancer than to be abducted by aliens. peace

Sorry, didn't mean to pile up on you. I often hear similar comments as "feed the starving' or something to that effect, so I unloaded the baggage of all those comments on you. Have another beer!

I'm not concerned about being abducted by aliens, btw. My life must be dull, because I've never even seen a UFO...any unidentified object.

Archer: "...but unless one is willing to buy into ET doing graffiti or unknown energy forces having a fetish for crops."

Lol.

[Fortunate]

jt-3d's comment, even though it was tongue-in-cheek and strays quite a way from the OP, raises a spurious objection to basic scientific research that I am sure we have all encountered. The fallacy, in my opinion, is the assumption that funds deleted from the science budget would automatically be diverted to alleviating social problems - if Imelda Marcos hadn't bought all those shoes, she could have spent that money to feed the poor - or that the reason we are not spending more on social problems is that we are spending the money on basic science. The argument employs a false dilemma.

[Disinfo Agent]

Some previous discussions:

SETI and the Drake equation are religion, not science
SETI is just making us look bad
Why SETI is science and UFOlogy is not

[peteshimmon]

Strangely the first ever scientific looking
paper I ever saw 45 years ago was about this
subject. It was an appendix in a book by Sir
Bernard Lovell , The Exploration of Outer
Space, that I had out from my little local
library. It was by Cocconi from CERN and it
showed how the Jodrell Bank radio telescope
might be big enough to detect a moderately
powered transmission from 10 light years
away. I did not understand it of course
but it shows how the urge to look for
signals has been around among learned
scientists for some time. And if you dont look
you wont find anything!

[Gemini]

As near as I can tell, the budget of SETI is $40 million a year. That is $15 million less than the cost of a single Apache attack helicopter. Using the average unit cost, the price of all Tomohawk cruise missiles used during the Gulf War would fund SETI for a little over 10 years.

And what about all the millions big name actors get for being in movies?

[baric]

I'd say they took the shot, it didn't pan out. Now they want to keep it going by applying 'new search techniques' to the data. Enough, I'm done with SETI@home. They've looked and found nothing. Cancel the thing and feed the millions of starving kids or something. Time to move on I say. To keep seeking over and over is somewhat woowooesque. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I disagree 100%. SETI is privately funded. Who are you to tell private citizens how to spend their money?

Maybe you should donate all of your money to "starving kids or something" and then climb up on your high horse.

[jt-3d]

Whao there, Tex. I don't think me stating my opinion of a project I supported for five years rates a textual slap from you. As I said, they can keep looking, they can flush their money down the toilet. SETI IMHO is a waste of money.

SETI wanted to listen for other signs of intelligence (stated that there's something to hear). Seti has listened (tried to support their claim), not heard anything (found there is nothing to hear) and yet continues to listen (insists that there must be something to hear despite the lack of evidence). That sound woowooesque to me. There, that's what I meant with my first reply. This is my last reply.

[Van Rijn]

SETI wanted to listen for other signs of intelligence (stated that there's something to hear).

Please point to where they said there definitely was ETI. Looking for evidence is not the same as assuming existence.

Seti has listened (tried to support their claim), not heard anything (found there is nothing to hear) and yet continues to listen (insists that there must be something to hear despite the lack of evidence). That sound woowooesque to me. There, that's what I meant with my first reply. This is my last reply.

Huh? It is a big universe. Even assuming there is something to find, there is no reason at all to assume instant results, certainly not with the limited searches done so far. We could be at this for a century and only cover a fraction of the possibilities.

[boppa]

SETI wanted to listen for other signs of intelligence (stated that there's something to hear). Seti has listened (tried to support their claim), not heard anything (found there is nothing to hear) and yet continues to listen (insists that there must be something to hear despite the lack of evidence). That sound woowooesque to me. There, that's what I meant with my first reply. This is my last reply.

considering we have only been listening for a few years of the billions of years that the universe has existed and that radio signals are limited to light speed i think its a little early to say we listened,nothing there,shut it down

if there was a civilisation say 300 lightyears away that today had just started their own seti program-there would be nothing to indicate that earth had intelligent life on it. Their version of seti would have to run for a few years more yet before suddenly there would be a sudden increase in radio chatter
(dates and distances approximate as i cant be bothered googling up the exact date radio became widespread-but you get the idea)

[Romanus]

For my part, I don't think SETI will ever find an unambiguous signal, let alone play interstellar telephone with another ETI. That said, I support it completely, and think it's a valid enterprise, because:

1.) Nobody really knows what's out there, Fermi Paradox or not.

2.) In terms of cost, it's extremely cheap, and can be easily piggy-backed on other programs.

3.) The ramifications of contact would be so enormous that it's worth the time and money to look for it, even in the absence of certain success. It's basically the same reason people spend billions each year on lottery tickets, only *this* winning ticket would have something for the entire human race.

[woodguard]

Seti real should be put under the dowsing category.

In dowsing, you look for water with equipment that is unable to find it.

Using earth as an example,(100% of all samples we have) we only used omni-direction antennas for what 50 years in several billion years or this planet.
Everything is point to point with very weak signals, and with high and high frequents.

You don’t need a lot of power to hit a satellite and satellites transmit down unless they are broken.
Not counting the digital and encrypted stuff.


And 40 million would help save Hubble ,or take the dents out.

I not saying there is no life out there. Lets wait until we are really to do real science and we have some real facts to use, not dreamed up ones.

[woodguard]

1.) Nobody really knows what's out there,

or where to find it or want form it will be? or how to really find it?

2.) In terms of cost, it's extremely cheap,

What is the is the cost of cheaping science. Science is being attack everyday by fake science. Creationism is a good example. SETI is based on no real facts and at this time should have no connect to real science.

3.) The ramifications of contact would be so enormous.

Not really. there would always be people saying it was a new type of star or some refections of our own signals.

A good example is the facts of life was once on mars. And different people have facts there was no life on mars. Data can be twisted in having many meaning ,without many samples. Even it you found one or two signals your would need more.


And if you think discovering another intelligent life out there would help us. Look at how many people over a dumb cartoon, think what would happen then.

We are not ready to find life on another planet.
And we are not ready for the answer.(you maybe ready but the other 5 billion may not be.)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Seti real should be put under the dowsing category.

In dowsing, you look for water with equipment that is unable to find it.

So... looking for radio signals with equipment capable of detecting radio signals is... just like using two sticks to detect underground water? There's some serious mind-bending going on here...

I not saying there is no life out there. Lets wait until we are really to do real science and we have some real facts to use, not dreamed up ones.

Yes... let us not look for the facts and improve our methods, because that's a waste of time. Let us just sit back and wait for the facts to fall into our lap. That's what "real science" is all about, after all.

A good example is the facts of life was once on mars. And different people have facts there was no life on mars. Data can be twisted in having many meaning ,without many samples. Even it you found one or two signals your would need more.

So, your solution is to just not look at all? How is that "real science"? Please...

[TheBlackCat]

Seti real should be put under the dowsing category.

In dowsing, you look for water with equipment that is unable to find it.

No, there is no relation. Dowsing is trying to find something with tools that are physically unable to find something even if it is there. SETI is trying to find out if something with tools that could conceivably find it if it was there. Radio telescopes work, they are used by real scientists to detect radio signals from space all the time. Dowsing rods do not work. Just because something hasn't found what it is looking for yet doesn't mean it can't possibly find what it is looking for. LIGO hasn't found what it is looking for yet. Does that put it in the same category as a dowsing rod? What about all the particle accelerator labs looking for the Higg's boson? Are particle accelerators in the same category as dowsing rods? Just because something hasn't found what it is looking for yet doesn't mean it is pseudoscience. If we already have what we are looking for, then there really wouldn't be any point to continue searching, would there?

Using earth as an example,(100% of all samples we have) we only used omni-direction antennas for what 50 years in several billion years or this planet.
Everything is point to point with very weak signals, and with high and high frequents.

You don’t need a lot of power to hit a satellite and satellites transmit down unless they are broken.
Not counting the digital and encrypted stuff.

A lot of radio signals still aren't carried by satellite even today. We are still broadcasting a wide variety of audio, voice, and video signals from and to the ground. Digital and encrypted "stuff" could still be identifiable as an alien signal even if we can't figure out what it is saying. We don't actually have to understand a signal to figure out it is of intelligent origin.

And 40 million would help save Hubble ,or take the dents out.

And how much did you donate to the fund to save Hubble? SETI is funded by private individuals who believe in the cause. If you think Hubble is more important, then donate your money to Hubble. It is their money, they can donate it to whatever cause they think deserves it. And if you aren't willing to donate your own money you are in no position to lecture other people on how they should donate theirs.

I not saying there is no life out there. Lets wait until we are really to do real science and we have some real facts to use, not dreamed up ones.

Real facts don't just fall in your lap while you sit around doing nothing. If you want real facts, you have to go out and get them. That is the purpose of SETI, to get real facts. Real problems are not solved on their own, they aren't solved by just waiting around for things to settle themselves, real problems are solved by people who take action, people who actively seek out the solution. If we never worked for anything, if we just waited for our answers to reveal themselves on their own, we would never have gotten anywhere. Our world is made by people who actively search for their answers.

[Romanus]

<<Not really. there would always be people saying it was a new type of star or some refections of our own signals. >>

I doubt that, especially if we're talking about an Arecibo-like transmission from an ETI. If people disagree, then that's just science; no one can agree on what a grand unified theory would be like, but I don't think that means that none will ever be found, or that no one could agree on it when and if it is.

I know that finding ETI will not make a difference to the life of Joe Blow; nevertheless, I do believe that finding ETI will change human knowledge on an intellectual level.

For instance, the fact that the world is 4.5 billion years old has no immediate relevance to day-to-day life; for most people it wouldn't matter if it were that old or just 10,000. However, that it is *known* to be 4.5 billion years definitely changes the way we think of ourselves and of the world, at least on the scientific level. I think discovering ETI will be have much the same effect: subtle, but real.

[Duane]

Also Woodguard, keep in mind that the SETI@home project used 1 radio dish scanning a very small slice of the sky over a very tiny range of the EM spectrum. The newer SETI programs are using more antenaes and larger swaths of both the sky and the electromagnetic spectrum.

Further, SETI@home is the first program (I think!) that considered linking multiple computers togeather to act as a single supercomputer. Now there are several.