What is it with you and long articals today! I haven't read this particular piece yet, but as a rule, I tend to dig out the sources, or at least find as independant a source I can who has. Failing that, I find someone who's inclined against the biases of whoever wrote the original document. That way I at least get a counter argument. Scientists often have their own agendas, based on personal opinions or on funding. You aren't forced to trust them in so far as what they have to say doesn't affect you.
In the case of Global Warming, we just do what we can to make sure we do what's good for the environment. On a larger level, if you want to support or dispute the issue you do your homework first. And you hope that others have done the same.
I had half a response typed up last night before i became too tired to continue. Robin is basically saying what i was saying anyway. The guy clearly has little understanding of the scientific method.
SETI is a hypothesis that is trying to be tested. His attitude of "there's clearly no aliens, let's not look" is the unscientific one.
But much science begins from taking a somewhat speculative equation and then trying to fit what we do know around it. The Drake equation forms a framework from which to think about the problem - and is potentially testable. As we learn more we can at least put bounds on some of those variables. It's science.
I can't really comment on SETI's ability to achieve its goals as I haven't looked into it.
I really don't have the time to properly read everything interesting at the moment, I'm supposed to be using my online time for house-hunting, an issue that gets ever more complicated....
However I will say that the evidence is there for a lot of things the once-sensible-sounding author is now being stupid about. Everyone else has already said better.
I'll also quickly comment on SETI - science is normally most easily based on disproof rather than proof (as you only need one disproof to break a theory, but a single proof could be fluke), but for SETI, no sensible means to disproove currently exist. It's as valid a science as hunting for the higgs Boson, in many respects. Make of that statement what you will :P
Comments 4
I haven't read this particular piece yet, but as a rule, I tend to dig out the sources, or at least find as independant a source I can who has. Failing that, I find someone who's inclined against the biases of whoever wrote the original document. That way I at least get a counter argument. Scientists often have their own agendas, based on personal opinions or on funding. You aren't forced to trust them in so far as what they have to say doesn't affect you.
In the case of Global Warming, we just do what we can to make sure we do what's good for the environment. On a larger level, if you want to support or dispute the issue you do your homework first. And you hope that others have done the same.
Reply
SETI is a hypothesis that is trying to be tested. His attitude of "there's clearly no aliens, let's not look" is the unscientific one.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
I can't really comment on SETI's ability to achieve its goals as I haven't looked into it.
Reply
However I will say that the evidence is there for a lot of things the once-sensible-sounding author is now being stupid about. Everyone else has already said better.
I'll also quickly comment on SETI - science is normally most easily based on disproof rather than proof (as you only need one disproof to break a theory, but a single proof could be fluke), but for SETI, no sensible means to disproove currently exist.
It's as valid a science as hunting for the higgs Boson, in many respects. Make of that statement what you will :P
Reply
Leave a comment