The Fermi Paradox Is Not Fermi's, and It Is Not a Paradox

Scientific American ^ | 1/29/16 | Robert H. Gray

[Captain Rhino]

An additional thought.

With the probability of an encounter very low, a good working rule, for planning purposes, would be to assume we are alone in the galaxy. Not alone in the absolute sense of the word as that would bar the possibility of any life of any kind elsewhere. But alone in the effective sense of the word as it relates to the presence of advanced space faring civilizations (of which, we are still young babes in our stellar nursery).

While this assumption would no doubt disappoint the: 1)sci fi writers, 2) gamers, 3) generals and other contingency planners, and 4) the space battleship builders and other merchants of death, it would simplify interstellar mission planning by removing contingencies to be prepared for.

It would also be interesting to think about the protocol to be followed the first time human explorers out there actually do come across incontrovertible evidence of another space faring civilization.

[LibWhacker]

They don’t have to be known for the equation to be valid. Knowable or unknowable is a different question, of course, but I’m not sure any of them are truly unknowable in the sense that they couldn’t be estimated. We have to remember we’re just trying to estimate N.

Secondly, Crichton seems to be under the impression that the Drake equation has to be “testable.” Nothing could be further from the truth. The equation involves a simple application of the “multiplication rule” for probabilities that every freshman statistics student must learn. Then the student can use that rule innumerable times to do various homework problems. He doesn’t have to “test” it each time to see if it’s true.