# Is SETI a bit of a waste of time? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 6, 2001, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-seti-a-bit-of-a-waste-of-time/91738 "2001-11-06T05:59:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![ACoverOfNoise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a3d4f5/32.png) [@ACoverOfNoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ACoverOfNoise)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-seti-a-bit-of-a-waste-of-time/91738/41 "2001-11-09T05:59:44Z")
> [@](#): > > Are you saying that scientists will accept that there is or has been intelligent life other than humans–not just the possibility of non-human intelligent life–based on pure reason alone, or some kind of leap of faith? Yes. That is what I’m saying. In this case it’s been fueled by a sort of pseudo science pioneered by Frank Drake. He formulated the, now famous, Drake equation. Essentially, when coupled with the enormous estimate of the number of star systems and planets in the universe, a sort of magic probability factor pops out to suggests that, given the huge numbers involved there “must” be hundreds or thousands of worlds with intelligent life out there. This conclusion is supported by Carl Sagan and many other reputable scientists… The problem is that it’s difficult for scientists outside their discipline (and non scientists) to look at theories like this and make an objective assessment, so when someone like Drake or Sagan endorse a particular idea, it tends to become accepted without question. > [@](#): > > I don’t think that’s how science works. Science works on evidence. Gimme a break. Science works on money. Evidence is just one of those details that the people with the money insist on seeing. Evidence is easy to manufacture or "interpret out "of the data at hand. There are countless scientific endevors that operate on little or no evidence. Many of them rely on the same sort of “probability trick” of using huge numbers and incalculable equations as justification. Am I being overly cynical??? Of course, but only because I think you were being overly naive. > [@](#): > > How long do you hunt for some subatomic particle before absence of evidence starts sending the theorists back to the drawing board? Ahh. but this example only amplifies my point. How long would you search for your particle if your theory suggests that only one of them is likely to exist in each cubic parsec of space and the particle only has a lifetime of a few seconds? For some problems, the duration of the search SHOULD be zero. > [@](#): > > At some point between “right now” and “the human race and its distant descendants have spent a million years sending space probes out across the galaxy, and have never found any sign of anyone else out there” we would have to start re-thinking our notions of how stars and planets and life and intelligence came to be. No. That’s not how science works. You only rethink your theories when you have direct, testable evidence to the contrary. In the mean time, you may adjust some of the variable assumptions in the Drake equation to explain why it’s taking so long… Well my cynicism is creeping in again… ---
**Author:** ![Dave\_Stewart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@Dave\_Stewart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dave_Stewart)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-seti-a-bit-of-a-waste-of-time/91738/42 "2001-11-09T06:06:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Podkayne \* > \*\*But I think the pulsar map was a really clever idea. No idea if the ETs would suss it out, but it’s very very clever from this primate’s point of view. 🙂 It’s hard to imagine a species that wouldn’t have an appreciation of a simple map, but maybe that’s just that ol’ H. sap. sap. arrogance. \*\* I hate to quote Micheal Crichton, since I’ve been pulled up on it before, but was there any truth to the meeting described in his book Sphere, in which a conference of top astrophysicists couldn’t decypher the pulsar map, before they were told what it was? ---
**Author:** ![Podkayne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Podkayne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Podkayne)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-seti-a-bit-of-a-waste-of-time/91738/43 "2001-11-09T18:47:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dave Stewart \* > I hate to quote Micheal Crichton, since I’ve been pulled up on it before, but was there any truth to the meeting described in his book Sphere, in which a conference of top astrophysicists couldn’t decypher the pulsar map, before they were told what it was? Been a long time since I read _Sphere_, but my very hazy recollection was that it was not the pulsar map, but the [Arecibo message](http://www.ee.fit.edu/users/lpinto/Science/Reaching_Out/Arecibo.shtml), which is considerably more cryptic . . . and I have no clue whether he was relating an actual event, or if the story was entirely fictional. In case anyone wonders what we’re going on about, here’s the [Pioneer plaque with the pulsar map](http://contact-themovie.warnerbros.com/cmp/pioneer.html), and the [Voyager Golden Record](http://vraptor.jpl.nasa.gov/voyager/record.html). I see that the Voyagers didn’t have the nudie engravings, just images encoded on the Record itself, so scratch “Voyager” in my previous post, and put in “Pioneer,” if you please. ---
**Author:** ![robby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robby/32/11048_2.png) [@robby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robby)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-seti-a-bit-of-a-waste-of-time/91738/44 "2001-11-09T21:52:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Podkayne \* > \*\*…and IIRC, the only sign of _intelligent_ life detectable by Galileo was ELF signals from submarines. \*\* \ Submarines don’t transmit ELF signals. They only receive them. The U.S. uses two transmitting antennas, one in Wisconsin and the other in Michigan. The transmitters are miles long. \ (unclassified) cite: [http://server5550.itd.nrl.navy.mil/projects/haarp/elf.html](http://server5550.itd.nrl.navy.mil/projects/haarp/elf.html) ---
**Author:** ![shawa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dfb087/32.png) [@shawa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shawa)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2001, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-seti-a-bit-of-a-waste-of-time/91738/45 "2001-11-09T22:33:28Z")
What makes us think the aliens want to talk to us arrogant primates? Maybe they are already having extensive communications with the dolphins. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2001, 7:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-seti-a-bit-of-a-waste-of-time/91738/46 "2001-11-10T07:36:45Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by ACoverOfNoise \* > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Are you saying that scientists will accept that there is or has been intelligent life other than humans–not just the possibility of non-human intelligent life–based on pure reason alone, or some kind of leap of faith? > > Yes. That is what I’m saying. In this case it’s been fueled by a sort of pseudo science pioneered by Frank Drake. He formulated the, now famous, Drake equation. Essentially, when coupled with the enormous estimate of the number of star systems and planets in the universe, a sort of magic probability factor pops out to suggests that, given the huge numbers involved there “must” be hundreds or thousands of worlds with intelligent life out there. This conclusion is supported by Carl Sagan and many other reputable scientists… The problem is that it’s difficult for scientists outside their discipline (and non scientists) to look at theories like this and make an objective assessment, so when someone like Drake or Sagan endorse a particular idea, it tends to become accepted without question. Here’s some of what Carl Sagan had to say about extraterrestrial intelligence in _Pale Blue Dot_, one of his last books: > [@](#): > > But the simple fact is that we have not yet found extraterrestrial life. We are in the earliest stages of looking. The question is wide open. If I had to guess–especially considering our long sequence of failed chauvinisms–I would guess that the Universe is filled with beings far more intelligent, far more advanced than we are. But of course I might be wrong. Such a conclusion is at best based on a plausibility argument, derived from the numbers of planets, the ubiquity of organic matter, the immense timescales available for evolution, and so on. It is not a scientific demonstration. The question is among the most fascinating in all of science. As described in this book, we are just developing the tools to treat it seriously. (p. 33) Do you actually have anything you could cite, by Sagan or Drake or some other reputable scientist, proclaiming a belief in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence as an article of faith? Or does being a cynic mean getting to make assertions without having to bother with actual evidence? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-seti-a-bit-of-a-waste-of-time/91738.md?page=2)