Is SETI science?

It is science. We observe certain categories of phenomena here on Earth and in the Solar System, and hypothesise that those same categories of phenomena may exist elsewhere. For example: the solar system contains planets, it is a legitimate scientific endeavour to seek them orbiting other stars. That effort has born fruit and exoplanets have been discovered. We observe (rare) flashes of intelligence here on Earth, so why would seeking it elsewhere not be a scientific endeavour?

Perhaps the confusion arises because there is no way of experimentally verifying our hypothesis, but science can be either experimental or observational, and SETI falls into the latter category.

Interesting discussion. SETI’s FAQ page sheds some light on what they do.

Well then IDists, IDiots or whatever you want to call them might as weel claim the same thing.

They might argue like you and say:
ID is science. We observe certain categories of nanomolecular designs here on Earth, and hypothesise that those same categories of nanomolecular designs may have existed and been designed in the past on earth as well as elsewhere. For example: the ATPase molecular motor is the smallest known rotor in the universe and is much more effecient and optimal than any of our own designs. Therefore it is a legitimate scientific endeavour to seek and identify other artifacts that look designed and attribute it to some sort of designer for arguments sake a naturally existing alien race orbiting around another star(s). We might therefore then expect other advanced civilizations that are capable of these designs and the effort has born fruit and other designs have been discovered. We observe (rare) flashes of intelligence here on Earth (our own nanotech), so why would seeking it elsewhere not be a scientific endeavour?

Perhaps the confusion arises because there is no way of experimentally verifying the ID hypothesis, but science can be either experimental or observational, and ID falls into the latter category.

Both are either a nascent proto-science or pseudoscience. Heck, homeopathy might be an observational science (mix some conconction that looks like it works and observe the effects, no need to verify through experimentation) according to the above.

I think that needs to be qualified slightly as, “…because there is no obvious practical way of experimentally verifying our hypothesis…” In principle, all that is needed is a sufficiently detailed physical examination of the signal’s source.

Mechanist’s soft-pedalled version of ID, where the hypothetical designer is an advanced life form instead of a supernatural god, not only conveniently ignores how ID is normally presented as a final answer to the question of life’s origins and complexity, it also merely defers an explanation of exactly that which it set out to explain in the first place. ID, in its more usual guise, is not falsifiable even in principle, and hence not science, whereas any fruits of SETI can in principle be falsified: just go there and have a look.

'Luthon64

Well, IDiots can also argue that ID can in principle be falsified and then argue…
Show how life’s origins and complexity can arise without intelligence then it is falsified. And that is what science (they might say non-ID related science) is doing anyway, showing how it can emerge without intelligence. They can then just argue that they too are also looking for the designer(s), presumably somewhere in the universe if natural.

he he Seeing as he did it, I may be forgiven for just copying my response from myADSL here. Synchronicity ftw!!


Perhaps a reading of the scientific method will be helpful? What do you all think?

From wiki I also get that for something to be considered scientific these are important for consideration:

[]Consistent
[
]Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam’s Razor)
[]Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
[
]Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
[]Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
[
]Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
[]Progressive (refines previous theories)
[
]Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)

I’ll leave it to the reader to decide how many of these may be applied to SETI and then how many to ID. Hint: the more actually applies, the more scientific of course :stuck_out_tongue:

For convenience: SETI and ID

So, what do you think? Differentiate between the two to say which is less pseudoscience than the other.

Unfortunately, I find myself utterly unable to extricate any sense or meaning whatsoever from the above.

'Luthon64

Yeah well, everything is ultimately meaningless for your kind anyway, so no surprises there ::).
Just saying IDiots can argue that:

  1. There are practical ways (even obvious ones) of experimentally verifying their hypothesis.
  2. There are also practical ways of falsifying their hypothesis.

The fundamental difference as have been explained to you, is that ID makes assumptions and try desperately to twist “evidence” to fit these assumptions.

SETI is merely the ‘search for extra terrestrial intelligence’ something that may or may not exist. They are incorporating the scientific method and applying valid methods in doing so. That they haven’t succeeded and may never succeed despite there actually being clever bems, is instructive in and of itself.

Comparing apples and carrots are never a good way to look at things.

This is just like you, harping on some idea someone expressed somewhere and then pouncing on it like a cat and clinging to it like a pitbul, never hearing objections and reasoned arguments why you are mistaken.

Even if SETI was bad or pseudoscience, it doesn’t strengthen your case for ID in any way or form. That you bring these kinds of ‘arguments’ to the table is baffling.

Don’t hold back now. Enlighten us please!

2) There are also practical ways of falsifying their hypothesis.
Please go ahead and show us how.

I see, so it’s really just another slippery self-serving assertion of boilerplate baldness. Thanks for clearing that up.

'Luthon64

Actually, just give your opinion on which is less pseudoscientific than the other with at least an accompanying argument of some sort.

  1. If ID claims to have stumbled upon design that did not exst because of us, then they will have to experimentally verify it. Of the design came from our universe, then further studies can be conducted to try and figure out the source and nature of these designers.
  2. If ID claims to have stumbled upon design that did not exist because of us, all that needs to be done is to show how other processes unrelated to intelligence could give rise to these “appearances” of design.

Does not mean it is all of a sudden science, I still consider ID and SETI as some sort of pseudo- or proto-nascent science.

ID is merely the detection of intelligence without the evidence of the intelligent being(s), something that may or may not exist. They are incorporating the scientific method and applying valid methods in doing so. That they haven’t succeeded and may never succeed despite there actually being clever bems, is instructive in and of itself.

Thanks, so I am not mistaken, SETI and ID are both pseudoscience and the one being pseudoscience does not strengthen the case for the other one actually being some sort of proper science.

I have. That you don’t follow is not surprising.

ID is unmitigated bullshit based on wishful thinking.

SETI is a scientific experiment in progress.

1) If ID claims to have stumbled upon design that did not exst because of us, then they will have to experimentally verify it. Of the design came from our universe, then further studies can be conducted to try and figure out the source and nature of these designers. 2) If ID claims to have stumbled upon design that did not exist because of us, all that needs to be done is to show how other processes unrelated to intelligence could give rise to these "appearances" of design.

Christ mate. ID already claim these, that is what it is a priori based on!! FFS you can’t be this obtuse! I won’t have it!

ID is merely the detection of intelligence without the evidence of the intelligent being(s), something that may or may not exist. They are [b]incorporating the scientific method and applying valid methods in doing so[/b]. That they haven't succeeded and may never succeed despite there actually being clever bems, is instructive in and of itself
My bold. Please now tell us how "they" are doing this?
Thanks, so I am not mistaken, SETI and ID are both pseudoscience and the one being pseudoscience does not strengthen the case for the other one actually being some sort of proper science.
No motherfucker, don't twist my words like this. Once you show how ID is not pseudoscience or how a valid ongoing scientific experiment is, you have no legs to stand on.

Aaah, so this your way of a calm, relaxed response…and the MODS in this forum think your behaviour is just dandy and fitting.

Aaanyway.
Like SETI, ID is based on an argument from ignorance. If a signal or a conglomorate of particles can’t be explained via natural processes then hey presto, it must exist because of intelligence. Neither of these pseudoscientific endeavours actually use any proper scientific definition of “intelligence” and neither of these actually incorporate the scientific method and apply valid methods in trying to detect intelligence (hint hint, stay calm, I was paraphrasing you in the previous post old cyggiepop, don’t blow a gasket…).

Someone has to show SETI is not pseudoscience. Just clapping your hands and saying so is not going to make it so…

As a sidenote, hasn’t any of you ever thought that ID might just be the best thing to use to prove we where just naturally designed by other beings form another part of the universe? And not some supernatural entity?
Say they actually find evidence that life on earth was designed (once or in spurts) (just like SETI they have not, but both are still ongoing endeavours/experiments), what can that possibly say other than it might have been done by other naturally occuring beings elsewhere in the cosmos? And if we find these beings or remnants of them then we can conclusively say that we where not designed via supernatural intervention, just natural beings elsewhere in the cosmos.

You had better calm down. Breath deeply, let the bad emotions go, stop screaming and be less angry and then try and make rational arguments. That would be good all around for everybody. ::slight_smile:

I have told you this many may many times before. I respond as I wish. If you twist my words, you’ll get the response you deserve. Any emotion you read in my words will always be your own projection. Don’t mistake this for reality.

Aaanyway. Like SETI, ID is based on an argument from ignorance.
No it isn't. You are comparing markedly different things with each other and reaching warped conclusions. Big surprise.
If a signal or a conglomorate of particles can't be explained via natural processes then hey presto, it must exist because of intelligence.
No ons is saying that. There is currently only a search ongoing for such. If it is found, it will be open to investigation, experimentation and tested to death before any conclusions reached. And even then tentatively so. Completely and utterly unlike ID.
Neither of these pseudoscientific endeavours actually use any proper scientific definition of "intelligence" and neither of these actually incorporate the scientific method and apply valid methods in trying to detect intelligence
On the SETI page graciously given you they spell out how they do it. Please indicate the non-scientific and [b]please, for the second time, provide how ID'ers are using valid scientific methods to substantiate their claims[/b].
hint hint, stay calm, I was paraphrasing you in the previous post old cyggiepop, don't blow a gasket..).
The irony is stifling.
Someone has to show SETI is not pseudoscience. Just clapping your hands and saying so is not going to make it so...
Done and done. Clapping your hands and say it hasn't been done will never make it so.

And there did these “other beings” came from? You are not answering any questions with this.

Say they actually find evidence that life on earth was designed (once or in spurts) (just like SETI they have not, but both are still ongoing endeavours/experiments),
How how how are ID'ers doing this???? I know I haven't given you any chance to answer the second time so I won't claim this is the third time yet...
what can that possibly say other than it might have been done by other naturally occuring beings elsewhere in the cosmos? And if we find these beings or remnants of them then we can conclusively say that we where not designed via supernatural intervention, just natural beings elsewhere in the cosmos.
And where do these come from? A supernatural origin perhaps????

Err, at least try and project yourself to be a bit more calm and collective because you are doing a sterling job at presenting yourself a raving loony dumbass.

Oreally? Where is the evidence of ID? Nothing. So it is an ongoing search as well… for them anyway.

They spell out how they are trying to do it, it sadly makes it no more scientific than ID. That you don’t get that I paraphrased your assertion that SETI uses scientific methods and actually told you that neither use a proper scientific method reflects a bit bad on your comprehension skills.

Now kindly provide at least an argument for SETI being a science without it being just another argument from ignorance. Or at least answer the following questions:
Nick333, just answer the simple question and stop trying to evade it.

  1. Can SETI yield conclusive evidence of intelligence without independent evidence of the intelligent beings? How?
  2. Can Intelligent Design yield conclusive evidence of design (any design) without independent evidence of the intelligent beings (natural or supernatural)? How?

Neither has any evidence, and neither is scientific.

Yeah well, arguments from ignorance are never going to be scientific.

You’re the one clapping your hands and saying it is pseudoscience. The second post pointed out your faulty reasoning and the rest of the thread shows your expertise at arguing from ignorance.