Hypothesis - life exists on one planet thus it may exist on another.
Support - An advanced technological life form exists on Earth, preliminary data requiring more research indicates the possibility that life has or does exist on other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Saturn moons - Titan, Io, Europa, certain meteorites) Study aims - if life exists on another planet and has advanced to a broadcasting technology, it may broadcast signals in a type similar to Earth - powerful, narrow band transmissions that DO NOT exist in nature. Therefore, scanning frequencies may produce a record of such signals.
Second, why do they think it's possible to distinguish evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence from natural signals?
As stated in the article and explicitly at the SETI site, the requirements for artificial signals are specific to narrow band, high energy signals that do not occur in nature.
Third, would finding such a signal really prove the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence?
It would give evidence to an artificial signal source. That would support the hypothesis.
Fourth, why do they choose to look for certain specific types of evidence for extra-terrestrial life?
It's called science - you make a specific prediction and a use very specific conditions for experimentation and data. Otherwise, it becomes unsubstantiated anything goes wishful thinking - like ID.
This is very similar to ID proponents looking at life and finding it improbable that evolution alone can explain everything that we see.
Wrong - as another poster stated, it's like painting a bullseye and firing a bullet at it (scientific research) and firing a bullet and then painting a bullseye around it.
The third answer is that it wouldn't "prove" anything to scientific skeptic. Any signal of the sort being mentioned here could always be the product of some unexplained natural process
It could, which is why there are other projects that take possible artificial signals and do further study. That;s another major difference between science and ID - critical study.
The ID advocates are looking for biological features that are "not natural".
Absolutely wrong - ID assumes that naturally occurring structures are too complex to be natural simply because they are complex. SETI at least compares known artificial signals to natural ones and makes distinction on verifiable and repeatable studies - ID can not claim that. If supporters do - they lie.
So why does SETI get considered science and ID doesn't? Because while SETI involves faith and/or wishful thinking, it doesn't involve God.
No, because SETI uses scientific method. ID does not.
What ID claims is that there are types of complexity that can't be explained naturally.
Every claim by ID can and has been explained by natural causes.ID supporters refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence provided by molecular biology, organic chemistry, and physics. Nature continually produces complex forms through the interaction of many natural laws.
Whether it's a search for simplicity or complexity is irrelevant and a red herring.
Not if the "search for simplicity" has explicit requirements formulated before the experiment and before any conclusions are made. ID fails utterly in that the conclusion is made first and the search is non-specific and changing - completely failing any objectivity or reproducibility.
Would that be a fair assessment of SETI in your opinion?
Absolutely not - as stated in many posts and articles, SETI uses the scientific method. ID does not - it has nothing of science to it. It paints a bullseye around it's conclusion. It uses a fallacious method and a fallacious non-conclusion.
Hypothesis - life exists on one planet thus it may exist on another.
Hypothesis - life exists on earth thus it may be created.
Support - An advanced technological life form exists on Earth, preliminary data requiring more research indicates the possibility that life has or does exist on other planets (Mars, Jupiter and Saturn moons - Titan, Io, Europa, certain meteorites)
Support - An advanced technological life form exists on Earth, some elements that life may not be explainable using the existing naturalistic scientific explanation for the development of life.
Study aims - if life exists on another planet and has advanced to a broadcasting technology, it may broadcast signals in a type similar to Earth - powerful, narrow band transmissions that DO NOT exist in nature. Therefore, scanning frequencies may produce a record of such signals.
Study aims - if life was created, it may contain evidence of that creation in the form of features that could not have arisen via evolution or some other entirely natural process.
I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the difference here. Life exists here so it may also exist on other planets? Why? Evidence that life has or does exist on other planets? If you apply sufficient amounts of wishful thinking not much different than that seen in ID advocates when they look for evidence of creation in flagellum, blood clotting, or other complex biological processes. Of course it's also a very large skip and jump from life to intelligent life, but that's convenient to ignore. But if you can imagine life, why not imagine intelligent life, too, right?
As stated in the article and explicitly at the SETI site, the requirements for artificial signals are specific to narrow band, high energy signals that do not occur in nature.
See below.
It would give evidence to an artificial signal source. That would support the hypothesis.
It would give evidence of a possible artificial source, just as a complex biological system that cannot be explained via evolutionary processes gives possible evidence of creation. All it really proves is that they've found a particular type of signal that no known natural process can explain, just as ID advocates suggest that if they can find biological systems that no known natural process can explain, they've found evidence to support their hypothesis. The difference?
It's called science - you make a specific prediction and a use very specific conditions for experimentation and data. Otherwise, it becomes unsubstantiated anything goes wishful thinking - like ID.
ID is making a specific prediction. SETI is looking for electro-magnetic signals for which there is no natural explanation using known theories under the assumption that such signals would not be natural and, thus, be evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. ID is looking for biological systems for which there is no natural explanation using known theories under the assumption that such systems would not be natural and, thus, be evidence of a creative intelligence. The difference?
Wrong - as another poster stated, it's like painting a bullseye and firing a bullet at it (scientific research) and firing a bullet and then painting a bullseye around it.
Not at all. When ID picks a specific biological process as a candidate for irreducable complexity, it's the same as picking a particular type of electro-magnetic signal as evidence of an artificial transmission. When evolution finds an explanation for that biological system, it's the same as SETI advocates finding a signal that they think is artificial that turns out to have a natural explanation (e.g., the early detection of pulsars). That ID advocates are currently having no luck finding a specific biological system that evolutionist feel that they can't explain is no different from the deafening silence that SETI advocates hear in their search for narrow band transmissions. If a few failures is an indication of failure, then both should pack it up and give up.
It could, which is why there are other projects that take possible artificial signals and do further study. That;s another major difference between science and ID - critical study.
ID is inviting the same sort of critique. ID claims about flagellum and blood clotting have invited the evolutionists to propose natural explanations for those systems. That ID advocates have so far failed to find the smoking gun that they are looking for is no more a sign of failure than SETI's failure to find electro-magnetic signals for which there is no natural explanation. Both believe something is there yet have no proof of it.
Absolutely wrong - ID assumes that naturally occurring structures are too complex to be natural simply because they are complex.
You are confusing the reason for their skepticism and what they are looking for.
SETI at least compares known artificial signals to natural ones and makes distinction on verifiable and repeatable studies - ID can not claim that. If supporters do - they lie.
And why is SETI even searching for something they can't find in the first place? Because they assume complex biological structures are so likely to occur naturally that they must be popping up all over. Life must be out there. Intelligent life must be out there. Why? SETI and ID are two sides of the same coin which may, as far as we know, really be standing on it's end (life is entirely natural but intelligent life is so unlikely that it exists only on Earth).
No, because SETI uses scientific method. ID does not.
Things don't become true just because you say them often. SETI's search for a specific type of electro-magnetic emission uses the scientific method. ID's attempts to find biological systems that cannot be explained via natural selection uses the scientific method (such a search can be conducted via the scientific method, even if many ID advocates wander from the scientific method). The reason why both are looking for something for which no evidence currently exists is that they have a hunch or belief that it does. If that's not science, then it's not science for either one.
Every claim by ID can and has been explained by natural causes.
And SETI continues to not find the sorts of signals they are looking for. The Fermi Paradox suggests that they should stop trying to waste taxpayer money looking for something that likely isn't there.
ID supporters refuse to acknowledge the mountains of evidence provided by molecular biology, organic chemistry, and physics. Nature continually produces complex forms through the interaction of many natural laws.
That ID advocates include loons that don't understand biology and evolution is as relevant to whether ID is science or not as the loons who claim they were abducted by little green men are to whether SETI is science. Yes, nature continually produces all sorts of things but both SETI and ID claim that it's possible to distinguish the natural from the artificial. Either that's possible or it's not. If it's not possible, then they both need to give up. If it's possible for SETI, then it's possible for ID. That ID has failed to produce an example that has yet convinced the majority of biologists, chemists, and so on is significant, but no more significant than the fact that SETI has failed to turn up the sorts of signals that they are looking for.
Not if the "search for simplicity" has explicit requirements formulated before the experiment and before any conclusions are made.
So does the "search for irreducable complexity". The requirements are that the components of the biological system offer benefit that would explain their selection prior to the completion of the entire system. A + B + C + D offers a biological advantage while any three, without the fourth, offer no biological advantage or possibly even a detriment. Thus the natural processes and natural laws can't explain why it would have evolved naturally.
Yes, you can certainly point out that they haven't produced any such system for which many biologists, chemists, and so on are not satisfied that they can create a plausible natural explanation for. And I can point out that SETI hasn't produced any extra-terrestrial signals that we can't find a plausible natural explanation for. And let's not forget that there have been SETI false alarms in the past, just as there have been ID false alarms. If what either one was looking for was easy to find, they'd have either found it by now or given up.
ID fails utterly in that the conclusion is made first and the search is non-specific and changing - completely failing any objectivity or reproducibility.
SETI has also made several conclusions first. They've concluded, without evidence, that there is a good probability that ET intelligence exists. They've concluded, without exhaustive evidence, that narrow-band signals are artificial and not natural. And if they fail to find narrow band signals and adopt some other test to look for ET intelligence, would they invoke your wrath for being "non-specific and changing"?
What has SETI brought to the table that's objective or reproducable? The claim that narrow-band signals are artificial? That's an educated guess. In the past, they've suspected that pulsars and other signals were artificial, only to have them turn out to be natural. They certainly haven't found any more evidence that's passed scientific scrutiny than ID has. And that's not surprising, because both are looking for evidence of intelligence without knowing anything objective or solid about the intelligence they are looking for. Heck, the universe could be teeming with the equivalent of Niven's Kdatlyno, intelligent ETs blind to the EM spectrum, for whom the universe stops at the top of their atmosphere. Since SETI advocates know nothing about the ETs they are looking for, the could be barking up the wrong tree entirely.
Absolutely not - as stated in many posts and articles, SETI uses the scientific method. ID does not - it has nothing of science to it.
An assertion is not a proof, no matter how many times it's repeated.
It paints a bullseye around it's conclusion. It uses a fallacious method and a fallacious non-conclusion.
You are confusing ID, as the search for signs of intelligent design in biology, with ID advocates, as those who believe that such evidence is obvious. That is like confusing SETI, as the search for ET intelligence, with SETI advocates who believe in pyramids on Mars and aliens at Area 51. I'm not defending ID loons. What I am saying is that the idea that one can look for evidence that life was created within biological systems, regardless of how much of a fool's errand it is, is no less scientific than the idea that one can look for evidence that extra-terrestrial intelligent life forms exist by looking at EM emissions, no matter how much of a fool's errand that is. Both are ultimately a search for the unnatural among the natural.
Further, I find it no more harmful to tell public school students that some people look at life on earth and think it's unlikely that it evolved naturally without a creator than it is to tell public school students that some people look at life on earth and think it's so likely that it evolved naturally that they believe that the same thing has happened on other worlds and the universe may be full of intelligent life. Both are speculative opinions.
SETI acknowledges the weakness of the Drake equation and doesn't use it as a basis. From SETI.org site:
When they claim, "SETI starts with the premise that as technological life exists on one planet, it might exist on another," that's the same basic argument the Drake equation makes without the pseudo-math. The Drake equation was developed to put a number to the odds behind that "might". Of course the SETI sight just tosses another "might" onto the mix. There is one so there might be others. And those others might be detectable. Why bother looking? Because they think those mights are likely enough to find what they are looking for.
ID starts with the premise that intelligence can plan and create things. If such intelligence exists on a human scale, it might exist on a much higher scale that create humans. And we might be able to detect it in systems that are distinctly designed. It's the same two "mights".
ID looks at certain complex structures and says that they must be designed - no stringent requirements before - only a supposition AFTER THE FACT - and no ability to reproduce of verify results, indeed there are absolute no investigative results in ID.
I can argue, in the same way (confusing the advocates with the science, the preconceptions of the believers with the agnostic way in which their search can be carried out as science), that SETI looks at intelligent life on Earth and says that we can't be alone - no stringent requirements before - only a supposition AFTER THE FACT - and no ability to reproduce or verify results, indeed there are absolutley no investigative results in ID. And if you want to point to the false alarms in ID, I can point to false alarms in SETI.
Crucial differences - one is science, the other is not.
Constant repetition does not make something true.
Again, yes, they do. Other projects are in place that take the signals and analyze them as to possible natural sources, reproducibility, and verification.
Even if they analyze the signal and find no possible natural sources, that does not mean that no natural source exists. They can't prove the negative that science demands that they prove unless they know with certainly what did create the signal. Thus SETI could find a narrow band signal for which they have no natural explanation for but also no artificial explanation for. The skeptic would assume that a natural explanation exists while the optimist would assume that it was evidence of an ET intelligence. But the scientific demands placed on ID demand that science default to the skepticism and demand that SETI prove the negative -- that no natural source could possibly explain their transmission. Remember, given an infinite number of monkeys, an infinite number of typewriters, and an infinite amount off time, you will get the works of Shakespeare without any intelligent planning behind them. Thus the plays of Shakespeare, alone, are not proof of Shakespeare.
Another feature that ID lacks - again placing ID outside of science.
ID made claims of irreducable complexity. Biology responded with explanations of how they could have evolved. That some ID advocates lack any interest in such science is as relevant to the scientific nature of ID (as a theory, not as a movement) as those who refuse to believe the natural explanations for the face and pyramids on Mars are to the SETI movement. Seperate ID from the ID advocates. There are plenty of loons among those who believe in ET intelligence, too.
And every time ID is proved wrong, they shift the paradigm or ignore the evidence instead of revising the hypothesis to fit the facts.
You are confusing the validity of a hypothesis with the failure of a test. There have been several cases where SETI advocates detected signals that they thought were artificial, only to be proved wrong. They shifted their test to something different and a certain proportion of loons wearing tinfoil hats continue to believe that the original evidence was really valid and the government is covering it up. That has no bearing on the validity of SETI or whether it's science or not.
ID is looking for a biological system that is not natural as evidence of intelligence in the design of life. SETI is looking for electro-magnetic signals that are not natural as evidence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. Both have failed to produce any evidence, so far, that does not have a plausible natural explanation. Should SETI give up because it's come up cold every time? Should ID? What's driving both? The same thing -- gut feeling based on their assessment of the odds that they are right.
Yet another reason ID is not science.
Whatever.