From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 20:29:49 -0000 Archived: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:43:59 -0500 Subject: Re: Update To Our View Of The Drake Equation >From: Robert Powell <rpowell.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 09:02:14 -0600 >Subject: Re: Update To Our View Of The Drake Equation >>From: Ray Dickenson <r.dickenson.nul> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <post.nul> >>Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 03:07:58 -0000 >>Subject: Update To Our View Of The Drake Equation >>Hello List, another update to our view of the Drake Equation: >>At Last, How Many Alien Civilizations Are There? >>http://phys.org/news/2012-12-alien-civilizations.html <snip> >Although the Drake equation is fun to play with, this is a good >example of the old adage, "garbage in - garbage out." <snip> >The author of the physics article contradicts himself in his use >of the Drake equation. On one hand he says that the latter terms >in the equation are so speculative that the values are >determined more by one's beliefs than by scientific evidence. >But then he turns right around and tries to draw some very >specific conclusions using the numbers that he "chooses" to put into the equation. >The later terms are highly speculative, and the values one may >attribute to each of them might tell more about a person's >beliefs than about scientific facts. <snip> >The argument about the "Great Silence" continues. There is >nothing in the article that convinces me otherwise. Quite right Robert, although much of 'big science' has always been about beliefs rather than evidence. Examining history we find that the science establishment holds on to a central theme: that humans are the only intelligent life, and that Earth (and the Universe) has a shortest-possible past and a close and doomed future. They have always been reluctant to accept evidence going against those 'beliefs', clinging on after the facts were obvious - like the victory of geological data over the "6,000 year-old Earth" for instance. Indeed, if you check today's paradigm of Big Bang, Inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy etc you find it's merely a modern extension of that old central theme, and based only on 'beliefs'. I.e. there's no compelling evidence for any of it - it's mostly non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific. Some folk say today's evidence contradicts that establishment paradigm, see: UNIVERSE The Cosmology Quest www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfE7doPzm5I Returning to the classic Drake Equation, I tend to think many of its factors are deemed to be unrealistically small. That is, an unbiased look at modern data would make its output hundreds or thousands of times higher. Even so, the equation is only a statistical estimate of probabilities. Real life, some quirk of the history of the nearby Universe, might bring a very unexpected 'solution' to our attention at any time. Cheers Ray D Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp