From “City Lights Could Reveal E.T. Civilization” (ScienceDaily, Nov. 3, 2011), we learn:
In the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, astronomers have hunted for radio signals and ultra-short laser pulses. In a new paper, Avi Loeb (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and Edwin Turner (Princeton University) suggest a new technique for finding aliens: look for their city lights. “Looking for alien cities would be a long shot, but wouldn’t require extra resources. And if we succeed, it would change our perception of our place in the universe,” said Loeb.
Yes! Just think! Someone else to blame for electricity waste, as in “THEY is worse than Us.”
As with other SETI methods, they rely on the assumption that aliens would use Earth-like technologies. This is reasonable because any intelligent life that evolved in the light from its nearest star is likely to have artificial illumination that switches on during the hours of darkness.
Unless, of course, eyes never evolved on that planet …
In that context, see this story by H. G.Wells, about a sighted man who thought he could rule over a society in which everyone else was blind. It didn’t work out because the society was adapted to sightlessness and people assumed he was delusional when he claimed to “see” stuff – just like Madame Baloney claims to “see” the future.
Hey look, it’s Saturday morning, folks. Serious science news later.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
You are right in saying that SETI is NOT serious science stuff – if it even qualifies as science at all. In fact, I don’t think it does. I don’t see how anyone can call it science.
tjguy, the thing is, they DO! It would be a very interesting sociology of science study to determine why this stuff is considered science.
Whereas if Mike Behe writes a carefully researched book on the edge of evolution – the limitations of natural selection beyond a certain number of point mutations – that’s not science or else it’s anti-science. Therein lies a huge number of unspoken cultural assumptions that are not in any meaningful sense science.
Why is it not science? Perhaps not serious science; but I would think attempts at detecting electromagnetic waves exhibiting complex, specific, repeatable patterns indicating design would count as a science of sorts.
tjguy:
“I don’t see how anyone can call it science.”
====
It’s actually a faith of it’s own as an extension of another FAITH based on Evolutionism. If that Dogma was never invented by an angry bitter old man, would such science fictional searchings be around today ??? I highly doubt it.
Stu7, let’s think what we are thinking here:
‘Why is it not science? Perhaps not serious science;’
How about we apply the same thin king to other areas of life:
Why is it not religion? Perhaps not serious religion;
or
Why is it not politics? Perhaps not serious politics;
or
Why is it not medicine? Perhaps not serious medicine?
Do you see the problem? We are perfectly happy to consider astrobiology as entertainment, and we have covered that entertainment beat here pretty regularly.
If it isn’t serious science, it isn’t science.
Perhaps it is serious entertainment. No problem with that, as long as it’s clear.
SETI has long been touted as a textbook example of ‘design inferences’ in action. It appears in practically every popular ID treatment.
Even the infamous Of Pandas and People states;
If SETI isn’t ‘serious’ science then where does that leave ID?
Just the briefest of internet searches uncovers overwhelming insistance that SETI and intelligent design are similar in both method and goals. A selection……
Michael Behe:
Rob Crowther:
From Casey Luskin’s website:
single malt, just curious, would you consider SETI science, then?
Uncommon Descent has been just as enthusiastic to promote ID’s kinship with SETI.
William Dembski:
GilDodgen:
Recently, however, SETI appears to have fallen out of favour with the authors at Uncommon Descent:
Not much love lost there.
I’d say no.
I would define SETI as a search rather than a science.
Which doesn’t mean SETI is therefore irrational or silly or a waste of time; but if we take a traditional view of science as theoretical, predictive, experimental and explanatory in nature then I really don’t think SETI qualifies.
Single malt, I suppose I’ll ask again, do you consider SETI science? I’m sure you have an opinion on the matter, and I was wondering what it was.
See above!
Sorry, I don’t know how I missed that.
It’s interesting to me that most people ignore (cannot face?) the most compelling evidence there is that we have been in regular communication with ETs for decades, if not longer, and that is crop circles. Given the abundance of these formations (over 10,000 reported worldwide since 1980, over 8,000 in England alone), the fact that no known human technology is capable of producing them in the well document times in which they appear, that there are well documented, scientifically verified biological effects on the plants themselves that would not and could not be produced by any proposed method of constructing them (planks being dragged, garden rollers, etc.), and the consistent sheer artistry and mathematical sophistication of the designs throughout these huge number of formations, the “most reasonable explanation” for their existence is that they were produced by some non-human intelligent agent using technological capability more advanced than our own.
Would you not classify this search as design detection, then?
In a broad sense, sure.
If you take SETI to be a legitimate application of design detection, why not apply it to biology as well?
What is unscientific about SETI? I’m not defending any particular effort, such as the feasibility of seeing city lights with visible telescopes, as that is really a technology/capability question. But what about the idea of searching for signals from space and then comparing those signals for complex specified information is unscientific?
Is it just the general idea that there might be life elsewhere that bothers you?
I’m in no position to vouch for the soundness of SETI’s methodology so I am not going to make a call as to its legitimacy.
Therefore there’s no way I can recommend applying SETI’s ‘application of design detection‘ to any other field such as biology, physics etc. And vice versa.
Can any of the UD staff comment on why SETI has suddenly been ‘Expelled’?
Single_Malt:
SETI is clearly science. It depends on observations of detectable phenomena and an inference to the best explanation as to what can produce a pattern of complex specified information. It is design detection in action.
Unfortunately, some ID advocates feel the need to trash SETI. As near as I can tell, it stems from one of two things: (i) a misunderstanding of the Gonzalez/Richards arguments in The Privileged Planet (i.e., thinking that The Privileged Planet demonstrates that there isn’t intelligent life elsewhere); or (ii) some kind of religious commitment to the idea that life was only created on this Earth. Neither of these is a valid reason for dissing SETI, and, as you point out, rejecting SETI is an indirect rejection of the design inference, so this is an inconsistent position for an ID advocate to take.
Now, it may well be that life is rare in the universe. Further, it may be, given the distances and the times involved, that it would be unlikely to detect an extraterrestrial intelligent civilization. It may also be that the funds dedicated to SETI might be better utilized elsewhere. An ID advocate could certainly take these positions. But to reject SETI as inherently unscientific is incorrect.
It hasn’t been expelled. Certainly none of the key ID proponents view SETI as unscientific (Dembski, Meyer, Behe, Wells, Gonzalez, Richards, etc.). Some less careful ID supporters, however, have concerns with SETI (probably for the reasons articulated in my comment above).
What does the question “is it science?” mean?
Is SETI testing a scientific theory? I would say no. With the size of the universe, and the great uncertainty of what to even look for, it’s kind of hard to falsify that there’s aliens.
Research can be “science” even if isn’t testing directly testing a theory though. Research and experimentation are often done just for the sake of gaining knowledge, although they may lead to new theories or impact existing theories in ways unforeseen. I’m not sure if SETI even falls into this category though – pretty much, you either detect an ET signal or you don’t.
So is SETI science? Not sure. Even if isn’t, I don’t think that that doesn’t mean that looking for alien signals isn’t a worthwhile pursuit though. If something is found, that would obviously be big news. And, eventually, if we keep looking and don’t find anything, that itself may be newsworthy (some would say we’ve already reached such a point). So, IMO, it’s interesting research.
And I would say that the search is done in a “scientific” way. They are looking for things in the electromagnetic spectrum that one wouldn’t expect to find if emitted by a natural source.
By “legitimate”, I mean the SETI people are in actuality endeavoring to detect design and that there are methods being employed by which to do so, simply because there is a very real possibility that there might be someone out there besides us. They might be looking for the wrong kinds of signals, or in the wrong part of the sky, but whatever method they have determined is appropriate in detecting some sort of signal, can the same method be employed to detect design in biology? In other words, what is it exactly they are looking for, and whatever it is, why would it be unreasonable to look for it in biological life?
I can’t answer that without assessing SETI’s method and determining whether it would be appropriate to use it on biological systems.
Assuming the thing they are looking for (CSI?) is in fact a quantifiable and reliable marker of intelligent design then it’s certainly not unreasonable, no.
It has as far as Uncommon Descent is concerned.
Drop SETI into the search engine on the right and take a look at a few articles. The more recent ones chronicle a severe parting of the ways.
I wonder whether the years of SETI attempting to distance itself from ID has finally driven a wedge between them.
I can agree with that.
Even though I don’t think SETI qualifies as science, I have no problem in describing their work as scientifically sound.
If that makes sense!
I’d like to add that the difference between ID and SETI is that the theory of intelligent design purports to explain, like any scientific theory, aspects of nature (the complex, specified information found within the first cell, IC, etc) whereas SETI is based on the materialist faith of “well gosh, if all of biology is just a fluke, maybe it popped up elsewhere in the universe.” Though it seems that both do use a type of design inference.
I agree with you that many enthusiastic supporters of SETI also hold to the idea that if life arose (materialistically) here, then it probably arose (materialistically) elsewhere. But that personal opinion on their part doesn’t disqualify SETI as science. Further, materialism doesn’t have a monopoly on the idea of life elsewhere.
If life on earth was designed (by definition, by someone not living on earth at the time, i.e., by some intelligent being living extraterestrially), then on what basis would we think that life only exists here? Is there any reason to think that a designer acted only in one tiny little corner of the universe? How many painters paint more than one painting? How many songwriters write more than one song? How many engineers design more than one machine? There is absolutely no reason, under ID, for someone to think that life is unique to Earth.
Both materialism and ID can accommodate the idea of extraterrestrial life (or the absence thereof). Bottom line: finding evidence of an organism on another planet won’t tell us anything more about whether life came about by materialism or design than would finding a new organism on this planet (which happens quite regularly).
You’re absolutely right, IMO. I think that the resistance to the idea of SETI one sees so often here arises from the Christian belief that the only intelligent beings God created were us, not from anything inherent in ID itself.
Bruce, traditional Christian belief does not assert that the only intelligent life God created is humans. You certainly can’t get that from the bible, anyway.
You’re probably right, with one caveat: I’m not aware of anything in “Christian” doctrine that would support that idea. Maybe some Christan commentators, or Christian traditions, or something. But I’m not aware of any Biblical or foundational Christian doctrine that would categorically state life is unique to this Earth (not that I’d want to get into a discussion of Christian doctrine on this thread).
Do you not think that CSI is a quantifiable and reliable marker of ID? And if not, what would you consider to be so?
The Bible asserts that humans were not the only intelligent life God created. He first created Jesus and then the angels.
Christian doctrine based on scripture does not assert that Jesus was created by God, but that He was (is) God “all things were created by him and without him was not anything made that was made…..and the Word became flesh.” John, chapter 1.
But, regarding alien life, the Bible has little or nothing to say. There’s one small passage of scripture that some have interpreted as indicative of other worlds where there are other intelligent beings, but it doesn’t lead to the necessity of such an interpretation.
I think the real Christian (or scriptural) position is neutrality. SETI just seems to be a waste of money; that’s where most objection lies, I believe. We could spend that money on something more scientifically beneficial. Leave SETI to private funding if they want to stare into space for decades on end with no results.
Ok. I won’t argue the point with respect to scripture. But what do most Christians today actually believe? I think that is a more relevant question, and one I don’t actually know the answer to. I’m asking.