In infinite wisdom Louis Scheffer answered:

Rich <someone@somewhere.com> writes:

How can you research something when you got zero examples
to research?

Answer: You can't.

So far so good.  So now we have two hypotheses:  no examples
exist, or they exist and we have not found them yet.

If we've not found them yet, no examples exist. Saying that no
examples exist is not a statement about the existence of the
sample category.

Hpw can you tell the difference between these two?

Which two? I see one, 'no examples exist'.

According to the scientific method, you have to go look.

Not exactly.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

    [...]

    I. The scientific method has four steps

    1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group
       of phenomena.

    2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.
       In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a
       causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

    3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other
       phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of
       new observations.

    4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions
       by several independent experimenters and properly
       performed experiments.

WRT SETI, the initial observations are missing. We are not trying
to explain ET life, as of yet, there is nothing to explain. And
while it might appear that 3. would apply, extrapolating our
existence to the rest of the universe, we cannot explain our
existence either. So SETI cannot be a prediction based upon
theories of our existence. The question of our existence is
still open.

The basis of SETI seems more philosophical then scientific, and
it is often downright religious. Many post that they simply cannot
believe that we are the only life in the universe. It's a matter
of belief. But I don't see how anyone's lack of belief (or belief
in) anything is sufficient to create ET life. Either it's there
or it is not, but it is not there or not because of anyone's
belief or lack thereof. It would be specious reasoning were it
reasoning, but it's generally not even that.

Failure to find strong evidence of ETI in any given SETI program is not a failure of the program, it is a scientific
*result*.

You cannot derive meaningful boundaries for something
undetected.

This is completely untrue.  Look at all the gravity wave searches,
dark matter searches, or proton decay searches.  None of these
has found anything yet (just like SETI).  But each of them
sets meaningful limits.  Gravitational waves, if they exist,
are no stronger than this.

Assuming they they exist, and can be detected as expected, perhaps.
But until there are some experimental results, you don't have any
idea if your underlying assumptions are sound. I question that
meaningful boundaries can be derived from a total lack of
experimental evidence. LIGO's found nothing, and the physicists are saying it's a success. I think they make much ado about nothing.

Proton decay, if it occurs, is no more common than this, and so on.

Assuming that we know what it looks like, and that we can resolve it
from the background noise. But what if we don't know what proton decay
looks like? What if it happens differently from what is expected?

They've detected a completely unknown particle recently, one which no
theory explains or predicts. I think it fair to say that modern
theories are incomplete, and that we also generally see only what
we are looking for.

These boundaries are extremely
meaningful since they allow us to rule out theories where these
effects should be detected.

If there is a framework of theories which have been successfully tested,
I think that conclusions are sounder. But drawing any solid conclusions
from a total lack of data is neither science in my book, nor is it
sound reasoning. And I do accept negative data. But what can you say
about ET or the prevalence of ET life from the negative data we have?
Nothing. You cannot even say that ET life exists (even if it does),
not based upon the observational data we possess today.

And you can search for a million years for anything that
does not exist, refining your so-called boundaries again
and again, but you ain't doing science.

Negative searches explicitly rule out
theories where the waves are stronger, the decays more common,
and so on.

Assuming that everything else works as expected, an assumption with
no clear basis.

This is *exactly* what science is about, using
experimental evidence to rule out possible theories.

What experimental evidence will rule out ET life?

    III. Common Mistakes in Applying the Scientific Method

    As stated earlier, the scientific method attempts to minimize
    the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an
    experiment. That is, when testing an hypothesis or a theory,
    the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another,
    and it is important that this preference not bias the results
    or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to
    mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon,
    without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common
    sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is
    needed. There are numerous examples of this, dating from the
    Greek philosophers to the present day.

It's curious that SETI has an inbuilt bias. It's also curious that
the existence of ET life does not appear to be falseifyable, it's
a big universe. So it would seem you would necessarily end up with
a never-ending search, regardless of results of lack thereof.

For example, check out research into general relativity.  Some of the
theories have been ruled out since a search for galactic tides in
the Earth-moon system found nothing, IIRC.

I'll be interested in what Gravity Probe B finds.  :-)

Is there any limit to the amount of resources you are
willing to commit to this 'search' Christopher?

This is a very different question.  The amount of resources to
spend on SETI vs other scientific questions is a matter of
priorities.

Where do you prioritize SETI?

That's just it, none of these [SETI] "investigations" are necessary.
Not one.

This is science.  You have a hypothesis, alien life does not exist.

I do? Oddly, I don't recall saying this. In fact, I seem to recall
saying that we don't know, which is a beast of a different colour.

You have made (correctly by the scientific method) a prediction
that can in theory be falsified.  Your prediction is "SETI
searches will all fail".

And I don't recall saying these words either. How is it you keep
quoting words of mine that I don't recall saying?

Now, if you want people to believe your theory,

No belief necessary, but you have to stop putting theories in
my mouth, as it were. My statement of fact is that we don't know.
Do you contest this?

they must try to falsify your theory and fail.

Must they?

So, from the scientific method, you want the best possible
SETI searches, and have them all fail.  This is the only
(scientific) way to strengthen your hypothesis.

It's not my hypothesis however.

So far a lot of money has been spent on SETI.

Actually very little.  For example, Jody Foster's salary for the movie "Contact" was many times larger than the yearly funding for SETI.

Tell me, how much the Allen Telescope Array is going to
cost?

Compare this with extra-solar planet studies.

These are actual studies, real science, and we have real
results, not bogus and fraudulant statistics paraded as
science.

And how did it get to be real science? This is *exactly* like
SETI.

In these cases you *start* with observations.

We had one example (the solar system), from which you
cannot derive statistics.

So what do you say about the oft-posted hypothesis that since
we exist, none of the terms of the Drake equation can be zero?

So some theories held that planets
were uncommon, and some that they were quite common.  Since
this is science, the answer is to go look.   Suppose these
searches had come up empty (like some searches in globular
clusters have)?  Would you then say they were not doing science?

Science is a matter of the way they do things, not what they
do. It's quite possible for them to either not be doing science
or to be doing science. I recall one announced planet find that
was retracted when the researchers factored in the orbital
motion of the earth. That they kept looking at their data
and pinned their findings to it shows that they were doing
science. Sadly, fraud in science is a growing concern. Don't
even ask me about medical trials. There is a huge money
interest in any drug, whether it works or not, whether it's
dangerous or not.

There are many productive ways that our research dollars can
be spent, I don't see that chasing a negative to the ends of
the universe is a constructive or sensible allocation of
resources.

So you don't believe, in the case of a negative result,
that the limits set by the search are worth the expense.

When all we have is negative results, and no clear reason to
expect positive results, it's far from clear that this search
is a tree that will bear fruit.

This is perfectly fair, but far different than the arguments
that SETI is not science.

SETI seems largely based upon belief. SETI is done using technology
(you seem involved from that end). Is SETI science? You tell me.
Is SETI falsifyable? You tell me.

Actual atronomy deals with the observable universe, and as such
any theories can be tested and potentially disproved. SETI is
not open to disproof, as no amount of negative evidence will
falsify it. SETI is not a science.

There are two basic hypothesis, mutually exclusive.  Either
technically capable alien life does not exist, or it does.
The hypothesis (your hypothesis) is that such life does
not exist.

Why do you keep telling me that I've said things I've not said?

This of course CAN be disproved, and the way to do this is SETI searches.  So you should be in
favor of them, and hope that they fail, since it makes your
hypothesis stronger.

You mean your hypothesis, which you keep attributing to me for
reasons I don't fathom. Perhaps you can explain why?

Rich

    Lou Scheffer