SETI and the Drake Equation are religion, not science

[Diamond]

I think I have to explain why I have taken such a seemingly bizarre stand to such an innocent looking equation.

Any questions?

[TriangleMan]

Any questions?

Yes. How many people actually thought the Drake Equation was scientific? When I became familiar with it in university it was more like a philosophical exercise, no one used it to support testable theories.

[informant]

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

The equation is not correct in the article. It should be NL=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL, where NL is the number of stars with planets inhabited by civilizations that communicate.

Drake's equation is trivially correct, but it's expressed in terms of quantities which are for the most part unknown. You can fiddle with the unknowns to see what happens, but it doesn't tell you anything about reality.

However, I don't think that Drake's equation is the cornerstone of SETI. This part of the article seems a bit fallacious to me:

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from "billions and billions" to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. [...] The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion.

Added: Actually, we could use the Drake equation to estimate the number of stars with planets inhabited by civilizations that communicate in the galaxy, if we had a reliable sample of the planets in the galaxy - but we don't.

[Spaceman Spiff]

I think I have to explain why I have taken such a seemingly bizarre stand to such an innocent looking equation.

Any questions?

I agree with the above. Nobody sold SETI with the Drake equation. The latter was simply was an exercise in thought. Every book I've ever come across that mentioned the Drake equation presented both "answers" (i.e., from >100s of civilizations in the Milky Way to ~ zip).

Nevertheless he does make some interesting points; not that I agree with many of them.

But let's also keep this in mind...Michael Crichton's (a medschool graduate) credentials in physical sciences research are??

[John Kierein]

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/7827/

Another reason the Drake equation is wrong.

[informant]

A lower bound estimate of the probability of finding extraterrestrial life, and intelligent communicating life in particular, has previously generally followed the Drake equation. This equation assumes that such life is only on other planets.

Interesting objection. It seems like a reasonable assumption in our current state of ignorance, though.

This premise of the Drake equation is wrong.

That, of course, remains to be seen.

[Swift]

I've noticed a couple of these forums bashing the Drake equation recently. I am not a professional astonomer or SETI researcher, but my impression is as others have stated, that its more a starting point for thought experiments, not a hard and fast equation. And the funny thing is we are starting to very slowly fill in the numbers. Not that long ago the number of planets known outside of our own solar system was zero; I have not checked lately, but I think that number is now in the hundreds. Maybe in my lifetime we will also find evidence in our solar system of life outside of Earth's biosphere.

As far as the rest of Michael Crichton's talk, I was not impressed and it was as wordy as most of his books. I don't have the strength or interest to go over it point-by-point, but a couple of thoughts.

I would love that all science questions, particularly the ones that relate to public policy could be decided by a rigorous application of the scientific method. But more and more public policy issues are deeply rooted in science and do not have the luxary of time to wait for rigorous proof. Should we wait 150 years to prove out the computer models before we do something about global warning? Its an imperfect world and we often have to make decisions before we have all the facts. Everyday at work (I'm a chemist) I'm asked questions as to what do we do about this problem NOW - we got product to try to ship. An acceptable answer is not "well, let me research it for a year and get back to you".

I also find it interesting that this is all coming from Michael Crichton; I've only read one or two of his books (and of course seen some of the movies made from them) but my impression is that his science is mediocre to bad, even by fiction standards.

[Alex W.]

It's the "glass of water" equation, in that you have no objective way of determining any of the values, so it's entirely subjective.

SETI, however, doesnt' deserve such accusations, as it allows objective determination of whether there is intelligent life in the universe, something the Drake Equation does not.

[informant]

It's the "glass of water" equation, in that you have no objective way of determining any of the values, so it's entirely subjective.

We don't now, but we may have some day.

[dgruss23]

Crichton's speech was outstanding! I don't agree with everything he said, but he makes a lot of thought provoking points in that speech. I'm not sure what his training has to do with the veracity of his comments. Alfred Wegener was a meteorologist, not a geologist - yet he's known for his impact on the field of geology. Why on Earth do scientists write popular books and textbooks if not so that others can read those books and learn enough to talk intelligently about the issues? But someone makes some criticisms and all of the sudden what matters is a piece of paper certified by a university?

If that's the litmus test than there are a great many things being said on this board by people that have no business saying them. Why even have BABB - I guess you should only be allowed to talk astronomy if you're an astronomer and talk geology if you're a geologist .... ? :-?

[Alex W.]

It's the "glass of water" equation, in that you have no objective way of determining any of the values, so it's entirely subjective.

We don't now, but we may have some day.

It's not going to be particularly useful if we figure out those values by going out and counting alien races, planets with conditions capable of supporting life etc. :wink:

[Spaceman Spiff]

Crichton's speech was outstanding! I don't agree with everything he said, but he makes a lot of thought provoking points in that speech. I'm not sure what his training has to do with the veracity of his comments. Alfred Wegener was a meteorologist, not a geologist - yet he's known for his impact on the field of geology. Why on Earth do scientists write popular books and textbooks if not so that others can read those books and learn enough to talk intelligently about the issues? But someone makes some criticisms and all of the sudden what matters is a piece of paper certified by a university?

If that's the litmus test than there are a great many things being said on this board by people that have no business saying them. Why even have BABB - I guess you should only be allowed to talk astronomy if you're an astronomer and talk geology if you're a geologist .... ? :-?

That wasn't my point at all. It's that he gives these "lectures" at Caltech (of all places) on how physical science is conducted. There is a big difference between wondering "hey what's going on here?" and standing up and making pronouncements on the merits of conducted research, then pointing and wagging fingers.

Besides, I think he has quite a few misconceptions himself -- because he does not do research in a physical science (and apparently hasn't bothered to find out how that's done).
For example, one of his points is that through history consensus has often stood against what turned out to be the "right" idea. He even gave an example of the consensus ignoring the work of a Jew. Well, that's a social science (problem in society) problem, not the fault of science. Because he doesn't do science himself he also doesn't understand the necessarily conservative nature of science. YES it often does take a long time for a paradigm shift to occur. Extraordinary ideas require extraordinary evidence. No progress would be made if we jumped every time somebody burped. It is generally an avalanche of evidence that shifts the mountain of science. As for all the rest of his "anecdotes", I cannot evaluate the reasons various "correct ideas" were rejected by the "consensus". So I cannot comment as to what the reasons were. Were they scientific reasons? or non-scientific ones? He just lumps them all together, and points a lot of fingers and wags his.

Of course, an idea is accepted in science once there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it, and then, yes there is a consensus. Though that does not mean that the book is closed and placed upon a dusty shelf. Research continues....So his contention that consensus has nothing to do with science is bunk. But it is consensus built upon evidence (for or against), not one built upon opinion or authority. Again, I contend because he hasn't done science, nor, apparently, has he bothered to learn from somebody who has.

NOW, where I completely agree with him is his disgust at the occasional (too often) invasion of science by politics or ideology. Neither has any place within science.

[ToSeek]

Because he doesn't do science himself he also doesn't understand the necessarily conservative nature of science.

Don't underestimate Crichton - I don't know if he actually published any peer-reviewed papers, but he's an MD who's done post-doc work and lectured at Cambridge (which may help explain why so many of his examples are medical ones). So he has some idea what he's talking about.

[dgruss23]

Sorry Spaceman, I misunderstood you.

Of course, an idea is accepted in science once there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it, and then, yes there is a consensus. Though that does not mean that the book is closed and placed upon a dusty shelf.

I think the important point he made regarding concencus was simply that evidence should not be ignored because of "concensus" The example with the women dying from infections after childbirth was an interesting one. You're right that its hard to know exactly what the reasons were that the idea was rejected for so long, but it seems that regardless of explanation, they ought to have been curious as to why his mortality rate was so much lower than everyone elses. What was the concensus that prevented them from exploring that further?

What he was really talking about was not a problem of closing the book and placing it on a shelf, but instead the problem of refusing to take at look at other books. Its easy to keep adding chapters to the book of the concensus, but that doesn't mean there aren't other good books out there.

[Normandy6644]

About the Drake Equation, I will not go as far as to say that it isn't science, because I do think it has some merit in it. However, inddeed it is presently not testable and does not belong in the realm of other "scientific" quantities like Maxwell's equations or the like. The Drake Equation is not meant to be a completely accurate model, rather a general idea. Perhaps I'm not articulating this well, but what I' mean to say is that perhaps the Drake Equation will come to mean more after more research has been done on the subject of extrasolar planets and potential for civilization.

[russ_watters]

The first measurements of the speed of light were extremely inaccurate, but that didn't make them unscientific. There is no set standard of accuacy as a prerequisite for a theory being scientifically sound. All that is required is an honest and scientific approach to the uncertainty.

So speculative as the Drake equation is, I think it is scientific. And later as our data gets better, I think we will indeed be able to refine the equation to make reasonable predictions.

And SETI, though not associated with the Drake equation works the same way: its speculative, but its speculation conducted scientifically. And it can be used to help refine the Drake equation. Every piece of data it collects adds to our assessment of the probability of nearby life.

[Diamond]

The first measurements of the speed of light were extremely inaccurate, but that didn't make them unscientific. There is no set standard of accuacy as a prerequisite for a theory being scientifically sound. All that is required is an honest and scientific approach to the uncertainty.

So speculative as the Drake equation is, I think it is scientific. And later as our data gets better, I think we will indeed be able to refine the equation to make reasonable predictions.

And SETI, though not associated with the Drake equation works the same way: its speculative, but its speculation conducted scientifically. And it can be used to help refine the Drake equation. Every piece of data it collects adds to our assessment of the probability of nearby life.

This is where I have to disagree: science is not about making assumptions as to values in equations like that. Speculation is one thing, but where have any of the quantities been testable?

I side with Crichton: an equation like that which could have any answer is worse than useless - it's the polar opposite of science and the scientific methods. The values that anybody assigns to these numbers are prejudice and reflect beliefs, not science.

[ToSeek]

I side with Crichton: an equation like that which could have any answer is worse than useless - it's the polar opposite of science and the scientific methods. The values that anybody assigns to these numbers are prejudice and reflect beliefs, not science.

The equation cannot have any answer. Given a specific set of parameters, it only has one answer (just like most equations). I think the equation is fine; it's how it's used that is the issue. I think the problem is with people who think that when speculative parameters are put through an equation the result is something better than speculation. I bristle myself when people say things like "The Drake Equation proves...". But that's a misuse of the equation, not something the equation should be blamed for.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Sorry Spaceman, I misunderstood you.

Of course, an idea is accepted in science once there is an overwhelming amount of evidence for it, and then, yes there is a consensus. Though that does not mean that the book is closed and placed upon a dusty shelf.

I think the important point he made regarding concencus was simply that evidence should not be ignored because of "concensus" The example with the women dying from infections after childbirth was an interesting one. You're right that its hard to know exactly what the reasons were that the idea was rejected for so long, but it seems that regardless of explanation, they ought to have been curious as to why his mortality rate was so much lower than everyone elses. What was the concensus that prevented them from exploring that further?

What he was really talking about was not a problem of closing the book and placing it on a shelf, but instead the problem of refusing to take at look at other books. Its easy to keep adding chapters to the book of the concensus, but that doesn't mean there aren't other good books out there.

In the case of women dying in childbirth via infection, there is at least one reason for what happened. Plain and simple, the whole phenomenon of infection by bacteria (etc) was frontier medical science. The fact that a whole other world of life on the microscopic scale exists, can infect the human and sometimes result in disease and then death required a huge shift in paradigm (read: avalanche of evidence, as a start). Stir in the conservative nature of science PLUS human nature -- the latter not the fault of science or its methods -- and you get the result that Crichton speaks of. Why is he so surprised that revolutions in science are so revolutionary?

Honestly, though, these are all short anecdotes, and together these cases of the "guys on the outside" regarding our understanding of infectious disease would make for an interesting book. Since medical science is much closer to his training, why doesn't he write that book? (or has somebody already written an excellent version of such?)

[crazy4space]

I agree with dgruss 23 I think it was an outstanding speach. In addition, I think all he did was defend the scientific process vs politics / emotion getting in the way of the scientific process. I must admit that the title " Aliens Cause Global Warming " caught my eye.

[A.DIM]

A year ago it was suggested that there are 30 Billion earths and then little more than a week ago, news that earth-like planets are common.

So, without invoking the Drake Equation, how many of these might have "intelligent life?"

[SeanF]

A year ago it was suggested that there are 30 Billion earths and then little more than a week ago, news that earth-like planets are common.

So, without invoking the Drake Equation, how many of these might have "intelligent life?"

If they're exactly like Earth, all of them!

(Or none of them, depending on how you feel . . . )

[kilopi]

This is where I have to disagree: science is not about making assumptions as to values in equations like that. Speculation is one thing, but where have any of the quantities been testable?

Isn't SETI testing some of them? And some of the quantities are fairly well known.

[RBG]

While I think the Drake equation has many unknown or speculative variables to it, it may have validity as a scientific hypothesis. It might be dead wrong. But you have to start somewhere and come up with something before it can be tested. I think science is all about starting from a very general - often (strictly speaking) incorrect - position and then slowly evolving to a better truth. Perhaps Newton's & Einstein's ideas and formulas are examples of this.

RBG

[ToSeek]

I don't think the Drake equation could be "dead wrong," though there may be parameters we haven't considered. John Kierein rightly points out that Earthlike planets may not be the only home for life, and the equation doesn't consider the possibility of colonization or panspermia. So the equation may need additional or modified parameters. I can't see tossing it out entirely, though.

[DALeffler]

Doesn't the result of the Drake equation have to be >= 1? The result can't be less than one; "we" count as one.

And doesn't that mean that every term on the right side of the equation has to be greater than zero?

Isn't that the entirety of what the equation really says?

The equation says that life has to exist in the universe (because we exist) and that nothing in the universe precludes us from existing.

Right?

That's what I got from the linked article.

[informant]

Here is a better explanation of the Drake equation, and a simulator.

What I think the Drake equation says is something like this. According to this site, there are roughly 400 billion stars in the Milky Way (N=400 billion). Suppose the Zetans told you that:

- of all the stars in the galaxy, 70% have planets (fp=0.70);
- of those, 10% have planets capable of supporting life (ne=0.10);
- life actually develops in 60% of those planets (fl=0.60);
- of those, 2% develop intelligent life (fi=0.02);
- of all intelligent life, 30% eventually becomes capable of communicating with other stars (fc=0.30)
- intelligent life is capable of communicating for 10% of its presence in a given solar system (fL=0.10);

Then there are

400 billion * 0.70 * 0.10 * 0.60 * 0.02 * 0.30 * 0.10 = 10.08 million stars

in the galaxy where intelligent life that communicates can be found at a given time.

This is a triviality. There is really nothing to test in the equation. It’s just a way to organize the information. The Zetans might as well have told you that 0.00252% of all stars have planets with civilizations that communicate at a given moment.
The only logical problem I can see with it is that, as John Kierein pointed out, it may happen that life is found in interstellar space too. Even so, we could be only interested in life inside solar systems.
The practical problem is obvious: we have no Zetans to tell us what the true percentages are.

(Edited because I forgot one variable.)

[kilopi]

Doesn't the result of the Drake equation have to be >= 1? The result can't be less than one; "we" count as one.

Multiply, not add.

[beck0311]

SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

I have a few problems with what Crichton has to say here, but the above gives me the most trouble. He spends most of the article complaining about a lack of evidence, yet he makes a broad sweeping statement that SETI is unquestioably a religion. He is treading dangerously close to a false dilemma here-SETI is not science, so it must be a religion.

Now, I have only met one SETI researcher, he is a person with an advanced degree in astronomy who, as part of a team, is using scientific methods to search the sky for signals that might be coming from other civilizations. He never claimed to me that he was performing any rigorous scientific research, and I never got the impression that he is certain that there is intelligent life outside Earth-of course, if there is it would certainly be the greatest discovery in the history of mankind. But, there have been times when SETI researchers have received signals that have seemed promising, and have been determined by the very SETI researchers themselves to be natural phenomena. This does not sound like a religion to me. Again, it is not necessarly hard core science, but just because something isn't science doesn't make it a religion.

Conversely, since my Father first got cancer I have met several cancer researchers who have an abundance of faith that they will some day find a cure for cancer. I am inclined to agree with them. But applying Crichtons simple test to cancer research I guess I am forced to conclude that cancer research is religion, not science.

[edited to complete a sentence]

[kilopi]

SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

I have a few problems with what Crichton has to say here.

Well, he wrote Timeline. <shudder>

He's guilty of the very thing that he seems to be railing against. He's trying to turn a consensus against SETI, based upon whether it is a religion or not.

I have absolutely no problem with any sort of investigation. One friend in Wyoming spent years helping Carey develop expanding earth models--but he was a geophysicist first, an advocate for the theory second. He didn't rail against the establishment, accuse them of fraud or poisoning children's minds with nonsense. He stated his case, and we discussed it. He was disappointed that I didn't "believe" his favorite theory, but he didn't turn around and insinuate that I was a crank or a troll.