I don’t think so. I think it is pseudoscience (like Intelligent Design).
They can’t ever claim they have evidence of intelligence or claim it is science without independent evidence of the intelligent beings (aliens in this case). Science has no method to evaluate and determine whether or not something is the result of intelligence or not without independent evidence of the intelligent beings.
It does not matter what SETI discovers, it will remain an argument from ignorance (without independent evidence of the intelligent beings) because their discoveries can be explained in the following ways:
1)The eliminative materialistic explanation:
Deep down intelligence is only an illusion of mindless materialistic mechanisms including an ongoing, impersonal, mindless competition of directionless and randomly interacting particles.
2)The Darwinian explanation:
Everything can be explained with chance, necessity and evolution.
Random variation and natural selection (chance and necessity) are the only forces of nature. The appearance of intelligence can be explained by random variation and natural selection. All appearance of intelligence in nature can be explained via evolutionary processes, therefore there is no reason to believe any signal discovered by SETI can be attributed to intelligence.
Another problem for SETI is that there is not even an agreement among various disciplines on how to define intelligence and which traits can be attributed to the phenomenon of intelligence.
Why should it be viewed as science from an empirical point of view?
So, if a signal that has a patterned complexity comparable to a Bach sonata, a signal that demonstrably does not emanate from our corner of the cosmos were to be detected, we would have no cause to assume a directed intelligence behind it, despite ourselves doing exactly that. Instead, we are not to investigate further after writing it off to either an illusion of intelligence, or to chance or necessity or some lesser product of evolution.
Right you are. Something – anything! – to preserve the self-important-but-barren notion that humans are a special creation of god (which one, though?).
The fact that SETI is a search for data with a particular end in mind no more makes it non-scientific than does the application of a variety of diagnostic tests to identify what exactly is ailing a patient.
Well now, which is is more pseudoscientific than the other then? Because (to paraphrase):
So, if a conglomorate of particles has a patterned complexity (insert any other pseudoscientific term such as complex specified information) comparable and surpassing our designed nanomachines, a conglomorate of particles that demonstrably does not emanate from our corner of the cosmos were to be detected, we would have no cause to assume a directed intelligence behind it, despite ourselves designing exactly that. Instead, we are not to investigate further after writing it off to either an illusion of intelligence, or to chance or necessity or some lesser product of evolution.
Right you are. Something – anything! – to preserve the notion that “detecting intelligence without independent evidence of the intelligent beings” can never be science.
The fact that “detecting intelligence without the evidence of the intelligent being(s)” (pseudoscience) is a search for data with a particular end in mind no more makes it non-scientific than does the application of a variety of diagnostic tests to identify what exactly is ailing a patient.
If you replace SETI with “detecting intelligence without the evidence of the intelligent being(s)”, I think you are going to find it hard to justify the one being science and the other not (or both).
Y’know, Mechano-Phroners, old boy, you are getting as bad as “Dr.” Nancy, pissing out your drivel on every forum-lamppost in town.
A hot tip for free ( a rare freebie from Rwenzori Confidence Industries LLC ) - at least run the bloody post through a speling chequer when copying and pasting from forum to forum. That is some good “emperical” advice for you.
Except for one teensy-weensy difficulty: We would be sorely taxed to offer more scientifically plausible an account (i.e. parsimonious and explanatory) than a directed intelligence behind the repeated occurrence of, say, the first 10,000 primes or Fibonacci numbers.
SETI is exploratory science. It makes no posits other than the possibility of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. In quite obvious contrast, Intelligent Design takes a “designer” as a priori.
ETA: To state the self-evident: SETI could equally well be SETE – “Search for Extra-Terrestrial Evolution.” This leaves the question of whether there are any facts not in peril of distortion by the god-squad.
There is no natural way of explaining the first 10,000 primes or Fibonacci numbers therefore the result of directed intelligence? Har har, no one is going to buy that argument from ignorace. Try again.
Heck, the adaptation or trait of emitting the first 10,000 primes or Fibonacci numbers might just be beneficial to the survival of a group of undirected particles. It can just emerge as a result of random variation and selection, no intelligence required.
Or: (replace SETI with “detecting intelligence without the evidence of the intelligent being(s)”)
Detecting intelligence without the evidence of the intelligent being(s) is exploratory science. It makes no posits other than the possibility of intelligent being(s) existing elsewhere in the universe. In quite obvious contrast, Intelligent Design takes a “designer” as a priori even though IDers are trying to detect intelligence without the evidence of the intelligent being(s).
Yes, you are so perfectly, indisputably, unshakeably, eternally right! Silly me, I am stunned, overawed, and deeply humbled by your profound and incomparable acuity.
Truly.
That would be on top of the already-implied caveat that the reality of an inferred ET intelligence would be subject to further confirmation, e.g. consequent communication (unlike that witnessed in this thread). To compare ID with SETI is a convenient little fairytale.
An argument from ignorance is your argument? Jee, maybe someone else won’t reject it? I am sure you can be a good salesman for ID if you can sell that nonsense.
But I’m not selling anything. You are, namely the idea that SETI and ID are of a kind. Your contrived argument and scoffing notwithstanding, the occurrence of an ET intelligence would best be explained as a product of biological evolution, a well-confirmed, blind, algorithmic process for which we have ample objective evidence. No transcendent super-intelligence required, as in ID. The detection of a potential ET intelligence would, of course, need further objective confirmation, for example a variant of the Turing Test, something that is anathema to ID. But noooo, none of that’s satisfactory for our ineffably xyresic Mechanist, which means, inevitably, that s/he has us sceptics dead to rights and comprehensively floored with incontrovertible argumentation, reasoning and logic.
We would all do well to pay special heed to such irresistibly persuasive accounts.
I am not selling anything either.
Just pointing out that SETI and other endeavours of detecting design without independent evidence of designers (natural - yes ID does allow design to be natural as well contra your straw men protestations) can not be science, unless you provide evidence of the designers, be it natural or supernatural (good luck with the supernatural).
Of course, ID is not restricted to supernatural, untouchable entities contra your straw man… Does not make it any less of a pseudoscience.
Wow, another straw man. Who says ID claims don’t need further objective confirmation if the designers are claimed to be natural? If they are claimed to be supernatural, then that too is of course pseudoscience, no evidence of that you may also cry.
Hey Mecchie, I believes ya, honestly! Always making straw men, these damn skeptics. One thing puzzles me though. Maybe you have an answer. Why do IDiots always look like cretinists trying to make their god look like he’s nature in drag?
I donno hey, maybe IDiots and cretinists (bless their soles and r-soles whoever they are) should clarify that for you. Maybe you should ask them, do you see any here?
Yup, that’d be you. Thought that was obvious. But hey, if you think you’re a special creation, far be it from me to challenge such subjective perceptions. That said, care to venture an opinion on the question I asked?
I suggest you ask the right people to get the right answers before you get wrong answers from your mischaracterization of others.
So, do you think SETI is pseudoscience like ID? Or do you think it is scientific?
What would we think if we received the message, in ASCII, “pseudoscientific argument from ignorance”, repeated endlessly over and over ad nauseam from the same point in space? Would we infer intelligence? Or would it be the culmination of Rwenzori Space Industries’ SETS program - the Search for Extraterrestrial Stupidity?
We could apply the test in our terrestrial STS program too, if it weren’t completely overwhelmed by evidence already.
