JCC What's your answer to Fermi's Paradox?

When I was young Frederick Pohl's Gateway/ Heechee saga was fairly popular. I think if I remember the ancient alien species retreated from the galaxy into black holes to hide from an even bigger, badder alien species. Or maybe I'm mixing my sci fi. It's been a while, and I've read so much.

 

Maybe you should try your hand at a science fiction book

 

Not sure why anybody should be offended that astronomy amateurs would speculate about astronomy... on a Star Wars forum.

 

I'm honestly way more offended by Wocky's strange characterization of what constitutes valid mathematics.

 

You mean the "it's not math if I don't like it" bit? I thought that was enjoyable. He's like my 14 year old: "A+B=C? How am I supposed to know what that means?"
A critical mind. Another driver of science.

 

The blatant Deepak Chopra style anti-intellectualism is pretty crappy.

 

Deepak Chopra sounds like a Star Wars EU name. Although I guess it should then be Dee'pak Cho'p'ra.

 

What I objected to was Coruscant's characterization that his answer was based on "doing the math." Would you disagree with that?

Yes, you can express some important factors in the search for extraterrestrial life in mathematical terms. You can express most anything in mathematical terms. By the time one reaches middle school, they can summarize the plot of the original Mortal Kombat. But being able to express something mathematically is pointedly not the same thing as saying that someone's conclusions are supported by mathematics.

 

This is why you're awesome.

 

Yes, objecting to a generic phrase like "doing the math" that's used to talk about something else than math entirely by taking it literally is an excellent way to delve into this topic, to which you have contributed so astutely.

 

I think it is even tougher that that. Expanding your analogy, I think it would be like you and the primitive tribe in huts 10 miles away from each other. You have your cell phone. They have a tin cup.

 

This analogy works better since my cell phone is light years ahead of two tin cans attached to a string and if there is only one tin can it's going to make for a very much one sided conversation and even if I had a tin can attached to theirs could we understand each other? And let's forget about accents.

 

I was probably better read at the age of 12 than you will be at the end of your life. Honestly I'm hard pressed to figure out what you find so offensive about the claim that interesting ideas motivate people to do hard science and are critical to getting science done. I'd argue that On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection wasn't science, just a really interesting thought exercise that helped trigger the modern era. Freud's Die Traumdeutung, or in general his entire body of work - another of the great drivers of modern science.

 

Doesn't seem to be motivating you to do any hard science.

 

almost nothing motivates me to do anything. But that's a different topic.

 

A preferable topic to the one this thread's about.

 

Other Jabba, I don't presume to speak for Vivec but I think we're coming from a similar place here. What we find problematic is something like the comment you just made regarding Darwin's early work. Finding sources of inspiration is laudable. They can absolutely be important in motivating people to achieve amazing things. No one objects there. But repeatedly, people in this thread have tried to substitute their motivations for actual evidence. For instance, SuperWatto's repeated insistence that the Drake equation is an important, credible part of the scientific examination of astronomy, while the truth is that--as Vivec noted--it's just a thought experiment with no practical value.

I, for instance, am a religious person, and find a lot of motivation in that. I certainly agree with and find comfort in Paul's exhortation that "Nevertheless [God] left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven." But it would be deeply inappropriate and wholly stupid for me to argue that because Franics Collins believes likewise and because it does rain, this is definitive and irrefutable proof of God's existence. You would rightly laugh us to scorn if I tried to make that claim, and you should treat this silliness about Star Trek (or whatever awful franchise is being peddled) in the same way.

 

I thought Drake made an elegant defense of why the Drake equation has been useful and how it has influenced astronomy over the last half century. The Drake equation outlines what we would need to know to assess the prevalence of intelligent life in the universe. The exoplanet search is filling in part of that. The other video I posted discusses how we would go about testing exoplanets for visible/infrared light that would give away the presence of an industrial civilization like ours. There's a reason the professor in that video mentions the Drake equation - because it helps outline the problem and identifies areas of inquiry, and it was an inspiration for his interest in the topic.

The search for extraterrestrial life may have no practical value, but it seems to be generating a lot of real science. Superwatto suggested that maybe the majority of scientists involved in Kepler were motivated to some extent by the possibility of finding life outside our solar system.

I don't understand why this is controversial.

 

I just refuse to believe that we're the only ones in the universe. Unless the magical mystical Jeezurs made it so.

 

Hey I think we can all argue this topic without insulting Star Trek.

 

Been that long?

 

"Are we alone in the universe?" feels like a very big question to a lot of people. A big chunk of human history was about filling up that perceived void with gods or a god. We're not alone: we have cosmic overlords who created us and provide our lives with meaning.

I like Frank Drake not just because of the Quixotic beauty of something like SETI, but because it postulates that there is nothing special about earth, and there's nothing special about life or intelligent life in the universe. As Drake says in the speech, we've proved over the last half century that there's nothing special about our star and that there's nothing particularly special about the earth. "The rare earth" concept is shrinking with the advancement of astronomy.

 

And I thought someone's dying wish would maybe be spending time with their son who sacrificed their lives in an alternate universe to save them instead of having one last date with a girlfriend he just met, but look what happened.