Comments on: SETI Science

By: NeuroLogica Blog » SETI vs Intelligent Design

NeuroLogica Blog » SETI vs Intelligent Design — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:38:05 +0000

[...] is analogous to the search for Intelligent Design (ID) in nature. This time he is responding to a recent blog entry of mine on SETI. He doesn’t actually respond to any of my points – he is just using my entry as an excuse to [...]

By: mindme

mindme — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:50:35 +0000

I’m never sure why people get confused about SETI. The name explains it. “Search”. Any hypothesis starts with a search for an effect or the existence of something not seen but hypothesized. Once you claim to have found something, then falsification comes into play.

By: Niels Kjaer

Niels Kjaer — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 18:24:01 +0000

I agree with TheBlackCat,

search for proton decay has always been considered a standard part of High Energy Particle physics. It’s normally been a nice “bread and butter” part of the big underground experiments, which were typically designed (and funded) to look for more “mainstream” effects like neutrino oscillations.

The Standard Model has always been considered “flawed” in the sense that it is incomplete and must be altered at least at the Planck scale. It can be considered like Newtonian physics which has to be altered at the atomic scale by quantum physics.

The big experiments that will run at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN will each do order of 50 mainstream searches for “new physics” each considered worth publishing in refereed jounals even when nothing new will been found.

Because so many physicists look in detail on so much new data, there will also be room for evidence for some pseudoscientific discoveries. But they will go away when more statistics become available. This has always been a natural part of experimental high energy physics.

By: TheBlackCat

TheBlackCat — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:09:26 +0000

Niels’ comparison with elementary particles is a good one. However, one particular example along those lines I think is particularly similar is proton decay. Some proposed replacements for the Standard Model predict that protons will decay into elementary particles with a certain half-life. This is not the prediction of the standard model, but people have been looking very hard to find proton decay events. So far all attempts have failed (there may have been some possible examples that were not reproducible or turned out to be errors). But that does not mean proton decay does not occur, all it can tell us is that the half life must be at least a certain amount (that is it must be greater than that value and less than or equal to infinity). But I would be very surprised (although I suspect Niels can tell us more definitively) that particles physicists do not consider the search for proton decay to pseudoscience.

However, I have a great deal of difficult seeing any fundamental difference between the search for extraterrestrial intelligence and the search for proton decay. The only difference I can see is that the universally-accepted theories for life and cosmology tells us life on other planets is fundamentally possible while the universally-accepted theory of particle physics tells us proton decay is impossible. That is not a criticism. There is nothing wrong with looking for things the existing theory says are impossible, in fact it is probably the most effective way to proceed when there are indications that the existing theory is flawed (like, in my layman’s understanding, many physicists now think the standard model is). It does, however, make me question why people are so opposed to funding SETI while having no problem with spending massive amounts of money to look for proton decay.

By: Puppet_Master

Puppet_Master — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:33:57 +0000

So would I be correct in saying: Logically, you can prove a negative. In reality, you can never prove an absolute negative because you are always making at least one assumption. The most basic assumption everyone makes, I believe, is cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am).

By: Scott D.

Scott D. — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 19:32:03 +0000

The biggest problems for SETI seem to be the range of bandwidths for communication and the immensity of space. When, or if, we find extra solar planets with diatomic oxygen that should greatly increase their chances of getting a hit.

Since astronomers were recently able to detect carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of an extra solar planet we may not be that far away.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/12/09/hubble-spies-carbon-dioxide-600-trillion-kilometers-away/

But I’m not holding my breath.

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:27:16 +0000

Eric – you are correct. I was imprecise in my wording. It would have been better to say that it is impossible to demonstrate the non-existence of a phenomenon. This is a practical impossibility, because you would have to survey in adequate detail the entire universe, and by the time you did that the universe will have changed rendering the survey obsolete. Yet, a single example can demonstrate the existence of a phenomenon.

I will try to be vigilant about avoiding the sloppy shorthand in the future.

By: sonic

sonic — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 11:55:24 +0000

You can prove things mathematically. You can prove things logically. In science we demonstrate things. This is different than proof.
For example- if Eric produces an x-ray that shows no picture of a cannonball in his stomach, then he has produced evidence that there isn’t a cannonball in his stomach. That is not proof, that is evidence.
Science doesn’t prove things- it demonstrates likelihood.
“Nothing can prove my theory correct, but one experiment can prove it wrong.” (that is often atributed to Einstein- it is certainly the correct view of science.)

By: cwfong

cwfong — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 05:32:17 +0000

Well I can agree with Eric that it’s not a perfect axiom.

Perhaps the phrase should be that it’s impossible to prove something doesn’t exist short of actually proving that if it could, it would.

By: Eric Thomson

Eric Thomson — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:56:25 +0000

“And on another note, I enjoyed your blog Eric!”

Thanks clic_br.