In infinite wisdom Louis Scheffer answered:

Rich <someone@somewhere.com> writes:

In infinite wisdom Joseph Lazio answered:

Only if you assume that the "looking" we can do is of sufficient
sensivity to detect ET life. And indeed, if ET is out there
trying to contact us, would we not have detected them already?

This is not at all clear.  Let's suppose ET does exist and is
at this very moment trying to catch our attention by sending us
an enormously strong (by radio astronomy standards) monochromatic
signal on 23.456789 GHz (to pick a random example).  We've never
even looked at this frequency range, to my knowledge, much less
done any sort of systematic search.  Almost surely we would not
have detected them already, even though they are trying to contact us.

Once we've searched the whole sky, in all likely frequency bands,
then we can make the statement you made above.  But this is
exactly what the SETI searches are trying to do!

I seem to recall someone claiming that a 1 watt transmitter would be
sufficient for reaching ET. One would think it would also work the
other way round.

Are SETI searches worth the small amount we spend on them?
Absolutely, this is one of those high risk, high payoff gambles.

R> High payoff? How so?

Do you think of everything in terms of money?

Did I use the word "money"? I suggest that this is your paradigm, not
mine.

No, you are the one who defined vested interest as a monetary stake.

Which has nothing to do with this discussion.

What is at issue here is what Joseph Lazio meant a "high payoff",
not a question I asked in another post.

Most scientists would define it differently (see below).

Perhaps. But there is the growing problem is scientists tinkering with
the data (if not outright inventing it) for funding, fame, and
importance. I suggest that not all scientists are philosophically
motivated. The egos of many scientific greats are of legendary size.

"Payoff" here is used in a broader sense.

Absolutely.  I've answered what I considered a high payoff in another
message.

Was that, to paraphrase, fame, fortune, and a Nobel prize? Seems
a less than pure motivation to me.

I'm not at all certain that you can know what a high payoff would be
for Mr. Scheffer. And it's somewhat disturbing that you seem ready
to speak for him. Has he granted you permission to do so?

Even though we have never spoken, Mr. Lazio represents my views
perfectly.  I am honored that he has chosen to do so.

With the two of you speaking this way, it's getting a bit confusing
separating who said what.

One of the reasons many scientists are scientists
is not because of the monetary rewards.

Absolutely.  To most scientists, 'having a vested interest in X' means
'published a paper claiming X is true'.

That is, it's a matter of professional standing. And we should not
forget publish or perish.

Having a monetary interest
in X being true or not is possible in medicine,

I'd say it's far more likely than just a possibility.

but rather unlikely
in astronomy.  No one gets rich off astronomy discoveries, or even
building astronomy facilities.

Did they grind the palomar mirror for free? These things are usually
expensive, and the manufacturers are in it for the profit.

In fact universities and non-profits like the SETI Institute

Many universities are making a fortune off patents they hold. And they
are trying to extend the patent term so that they can keep making
money.

are pretty much limited in their hiring to
those who do the work for the joy of it, since with relatively low
salaries and no stock possibilities, they cannot hope to attract those who are motivated by money.

I'll accept this.  :-)

I have friends who have moved
from astronomy to other careers and obtained much higher salaries as a
result.  I like the reward of being (or trying to be) the first to
find something that nobody else has seen.

Do you expect to see ET?
If you did, what would the payoff be for you? Or perhaps you've answered
that already, money.

Look at the last sentence he wrote - "I like the reward of being (or trying to be) the first to find something that nobody else has seen."  That's his payoff.

As I said, it's getting a bit confusing telling who said what.

Nonetheless, his statement was not about SETI or in reference to SETI.
And if I thought it answered the question I would not have asked it
in response.

I also note that he makes no claims about the satisfaction of those
who left astronomy for a higher paying job. Nor does that imply that
there is no similar satisfaction to be found at those jobs.

    Lou Scheffer

Rich