RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth.

RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/7/2008 4:50:04 PM)
quote: It's a field of study that bridges chemistry and biology Scientific study? quote: As much as the Apollo Space Project was a scientific endeavor. The real science started once the HGP data was compared to genomes of other species, especially the chimp genome which came out in 2005. The greatest achievement of the HGP, IM(somewhat)HO, is in driving DNA sequencing technology. The human proteome, the human haplotype project, and the human regulatory network are all much more important and much more science intensive. For the HGP, the only science used was in quality control. So these are really parts and levels of scientific endeavors, aren't they? I mean no one would call the human genome project 'religious' or 'philosophical' - I mean when it comes down to it, science is understanding how the natural world works, isn't it?

Method -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/7/2008 5:00:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Scientific study? Yes, a field of scientific study. A group of competing and overlapping hypotheses. quote: So these are really parts and levels of scientific endeavors, aren't they? I mean no one would call the human genome project 'religious' or 'philosophical' - I mean when it comes down to it, science is understanding how the natural world works, isn't it? Science is constructing hypotheses, designing experiments to test the hypotheses, and proper lab/field technique. It takes all three to be science in my eyes. Collecting data, or sequencing genomes, is the equivalent of stamp collecting. It is certainly required in order to do science, but it is not science in and of itself. The act of measuring radio spectra of distant stars is stamp collecting. So what is the working hypothesis of SETI? That there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? Not really. They don't know if intelligent life exists elsewhere. If they don't discover a narrowband radio signal does this mean that no intelligent life exists out in the Universe? Nope, so if their search is an experiment it is a failure from the start. SETI certainly has some attributes of science. I will fully agree with that. I also think that it is a worthwhile project for no other reason than fueling the curiosity of this and future generations. It would have been a lot cheaper to have sent probes to the moon instead of astronauts, but we sent astronauts anyway. I think SETI has the same mindset.

unclemonkey -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/7/2008 5:26:33 PM)
ORIGINAL:Method quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud So is abiogenesis a scientific idea? It's a field of study that bridges chemistry and biology. According to your own words (testable hypothesis) it is not science.

Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/7/2008 5:30:45 PM)
quote: Yes, a field of scientific study. A group of competing and overlapping hypotheses. And what 'null hypothesis' will the failure of these experiments based on these hypothesis fulfill? quote: Science is constructing hypotheses, designing experiments to test the hypotheses, and proper lab/field technique. It takes all three to be science in my eyes. Collecting data, or sequencing genomes, is the equivalent of stamp collecting. It is certainly required in order to do science, but it is not science in and of itself. The act of measuring radio spectra of distant stars is stamp collecting. First off, you are missing the forest for the trees. You are discussing the method, by which we explore questions about how nature works, but the purpose of science is not to proffer hypothesis and test them, it is to understand. I think that, as you have affirmed, cataloguing and exploration are essential to scientific understanding as hypothesis and experimentation; often one needs the landscape before one can make a map. And often, in the process of exploration or cataloguing, one generates the necessary date to answer the questions one is seeking to answer. I mean if I wanted to understand how population of frogs is fairing during a certain climatic period, I could survey them over time. This is a scientific question, and a scientific activity. If I wanted to find out why such activity affected said population, I might offer hypothesis, and do experiment - but that too would involve observation, exploration, and cataloguing. in fact, I would suggest the vast majority of science, much of it critical is of this nature. quote: So what is the working hypothesis of SETI? That there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? Not really. They don't know if intelligent life exists elsewhere. If they don't discover a narrowband radio signal does this mean that no intelligent life exists out in the Universe? Nope, so if their search is an experiment it is a failure from the start. SETI certainly has some attributes of science. I will fully agree with that. I also think that it is a worthwhile project for no other reason than fueling the curiosity of this and future generations. It would have been a lot cheaper to have sent probes to the moon instead of astronauts, but we sent astronauts anyway. I think SETI has the same mindset. Well, I really don't think this is any different then abiogenesis experiments. I mean if an experiment fails to demonstrate a living organism can arise chemically, does it mean that one can't? Indeed, if anything, it simply shows how these bigger questions may lay outside of ordinary scientific investigation.

Method -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/7/2008 5:58:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud And what 'null hypothesis' will the failure of these experiments based on these hypothesis fulfill? The null hypothesis that the conditions tested will not result in a simple replicator. quote: First off, you are missing the forest for the trees. You are discussing the method, by which we explore questions about how nature works, but the purpose of science is not to proffer hypothesis and test them, it is to understand. How else can we understand how reality works without forming hypotheses and testing them? quote: I think that, as you have affirmed, cataloguing and exploration are essential to scientific understanding as hypothesis and experimentation; often one needs the landscape before one can make a map. And often, in the process of exploration or cataloguing, one generates the necessary date to answer the questions one is seeking to answer. I mean if I wanted to understand how population of frogs is fairing during a certain climatic period, I could survey them over time. This is a scientific question, and a scientific activity. If I wanted to find out why such activity affected said population, I might offer hypothesis, and do experiment - but that too would involve observation, exploration, and cataloguing. in fact, I would suggest the vast majority of science, much of it critical is of this nature. What is the question? Do frog populations vary over time? A survey would answer that question, I suppose, but it's a very bland hypothesis. What you really want to know is what is causing frog populations to vary over time. That requires a hypothesis. You would design your surveys so that it will also collect data that is capable of testing your hypothesis of why frog populations change. Simply counting frogs tells you nothing as to why frog populations change. Also, you can't possibly survey every single possible cause. You need to pick one or a few and go with them, and then make sure your survey methodology is capable of testing your hypotheses. quote: Well, I really don't think this is any different then abiogenesis experiments. I mean if an experiment fails to demonstrate a living organism can arise chemically, does it mean that one can't? They can state that under specific conditions that life can not arise. And even if specific conditions do produce a simple replicator there is no way of knowing if that is how it occurred on Earth. Barring time travel, I really can't see how any type of research can state with any confidence that life arose through this or that pathway on a young Earth. Chemical replicators don't leave fossils. quote: Indeed, if anything, it simply shows how these bigger questions may lay outside of ordinary scientific investigation. They very well might be out of our. We can only study the questions through proxies. If certain conditions give rise to a simple replicator then those conditions can give rise to life. However, this in no way indicates that this is what happened on a young Earth. We could, in the future, discover a mechanism that produces new universes but that doesn't mean that this new mechanism is how our universe came about. There are some things that we may never know.

Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/7/2008 6:13:22 PM)
quote: The null hypothesis that the conditions tested will not result in a simple replicator. And how many of those do you have to rack up before it's generally understood that it ain't gonna happen? quote: How else can we understand how reality works without forming hypotheses and testing them? Do you exist in reality? How do you make it through the day? quote: What is the question? Do frog populations vary over time? A survey would answer that question, I suppose, but it's a very bland hypothesis. What you really want to know is what is causing frog populations to vary over time. That requires a hypothesis. You would design your surveys so that it will also collect data that is capable of testing your hypothesis of why frog populations change. Simply counting frogs tells you nothing as to why frog populations change. Also, you can't possibly survey every single possible cause. You need to pick one or a few and go with them, and then make sure your survey methodology is capable of testing your hypotheses. It may be that the vast majority of science is 'bland', but the reality generally is, until such catalogues exist and until such explorations are undertaken, very little else can be done. It's all part of the process. quote: They can state that under specific conditions that life can not arise. And even if specific conditions do produce a simple replicator there is no way of knowing if that is how it occurred on Earth. Barring time travel, I really can't see how any type of research can state with any confidence that life arose through this or that pathway on a young Earth. Chemical replicators don't leave fossils. So, essentially, no different than SETI in this regard. quote: They very well might be out of our. We can only study the questions through proxies. If certain conditions give rise to a simple replicator then those conditions can give rise to life. However, this in no way indicates that this is what happened on a young Earth. We could, in the future, discover a mechanism that produces new universes but that doesn't mean that this new mechanism is how our universe came about. There are some things that we may never know. I think the problem with this reasoning is that it really makes the whole notion completely unscientific. Positing conditions that are unobservable, untestable, and that are purported to exist in set of unknown conditions really isn't a scientific endeavor. In fact, the only testable hypothesis in this whole scenario would be "Life cannot arise unguided from non-living matter". Other than that, nothing can be demonstrated convincingly.

Method -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/7/2008 6:24:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud And how many of those do you have to rack up before it's generally understood that it ain't gonna happen? It never ends. quote: Do you exist in reality? How do you make it through the day? By building on previous experiences. quote: It may be that the vast majority of science is 'bland', but the reality generally is, until such catalogues exist and until such explorations are undertaken, very little else can be done. It's all part of the process. Collecting data is part of the scientific process. I completely agree. quote: So, essentially, no different than SETI in this regard. I really don't see a lot of parallels between SETI and abiogenesis. You really have to generalize both in order to see anything that compares. quote: I think the problem with this reasoning is that it really makes the whole notion completely unscientific. Positing conditions that are unobservable, untestable, and that are purported to exist in set of unknown conditions really isn't a scientific endeavor. The conditions are observable, testable, and existant in the lab. Whether those conditions existed in the past is certainly arguable, but you have to start somewhere. The problem may be that you find the conclusions irrelevant to you, personally. There's nothing wrong with that at all. I have read very well written and strongly supported papers that I find irrelevant to the real questions found in that field. It happens. quote: In fact, the only testable hypothesis in this whole scenario would be "Life cannot arise unguided from non-living matter". Other than that, nothing can be demonstrated convincingly. How would you test this hypothesis?

swan42 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/7/2008 6:42:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:swan42 quote: quote: I stand corrected. Thank you. However, you do agree that DNA is encoded do you not? Yes agreed. Not that the rest of you post isn�t interesting because it is. It is just that it strays from the point I am making. The point being that ID is every bit as scientific as S.E.T.I. You can also say that ID is every bit as unscientific as SETI. The SETI program is well, a long shot as anyone can probably agree, and well, ID is a long shot too. For a brief moment, I'll pretend that ID is not the YEC's back door method of putting religion into science. If I do then, then at its scientific foundation, ID requires the largest null hypothesis imaginable combined with the largest Occam's Razor employable. Here's how it goes... ID must falsify evolution (possible, but unlikely), falsify abiogenesis (plausible), falsify astrophysics (impossible), falsify cutting edge physics (plausible). Falsify all other un-discussed explanations including creation myths of other religions that do not support ID. Falsifying all these concepts, theories, and established science will take significant effort. All that remains after the long shot falsification process is complete is ID, therefore ID must be true. This makes ID about as useless (or useful) an endeavor as SETI is. ID will not be proven in my lifetime, so I think the field should be set aside for now. Likewise, I do not support public funding of SETI. Private funding for SETI is fine for now.

Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/7/2008 11:05:54 PM)
It never ends. As long as there is grant money to be had from the gullible I suppose. quote: By building on previous experiences. So forming hypotheses and testing then isn�t always necessary. quote: I really don't see a lot of parallels between SETI and abiogenesis. You really have to generalize both in order to see anything that compares. They both consist of blindly and endlessly searching for phenomena we have no reason to believe exist. quote: The conditions are observable, testable, and existant in the lab. Whether those conditions existed in the past is certainly arguable, but you have to start somewhere. Sure; one could start anywhere in fact. quote: How would you test this hypothesis? You can�t test it; I would try to prove it wrong.

drj11 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 9:48:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud They both consist of blindly and endlessly searching for phenomena we have no reason to believe exist. So wait a second... Being able to show life could have formed by natural means is one of your primary ways for ID falsification.. so you're saying one of the primary ways to falsify ID is a wild goose chase, so we should just stop "wasting our time" on the research? A little premature don't you think? Even if you think ID shows promise, you can't honestly say its been demonstrated or even supported by evidence, in any way what-so-ever. Letting important research go by the wayside because you've already decided your favorite theory is right seems... like a bad idea. Not to mention... where again does it lead? People have been working on ID for decades, lets see some new exiting predictions or research that has bore fruit?

Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 10:46:59 AM)
quote: So wait a second... Being able to show life could have formed by natural means is one of your primary ways for ID falsification.. so you're saying one of the primary ways to falsify ID is a wild goose chase, so we should just stop "wasting our time" on the research? A little premature don't you think? Even if you think ID shows promise, you can't honestly say its been demonstrated or even supported by evidence, in any way what-so-ever. Letting important research go by the wayside because you've already decided your favorite theory is right seems... like a bad idea. Not to mention... where again does it lead? People have been working on ID for decades, lets see some new exiting predictions or research that has bore fruit? Actually, I think as an attempt to falsify ID abiogenesis would be a worthwhile pursuit; however, a much more worthwhile pursuit would be to have a biology that treats organisms as complex systems that should be understood and emulated by us as intelligent designers, systems that have purposes and goals, and for which elegant, sophisticated, efficient, and optimized solutions can be found and utilized.

drj11 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 10:55:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Actually, I think as an attempt to falsify ID abiogenesis would be a worthwhile pursuit; however, a much more worthwhile pursuit would be to have a biology that treats organisms as complex systems that should be understood and emulated by us as intelligent designers, systems that have purposes and goals, and for which elegant, sophisticated, efficient, and optimized solutions can be found and utilized. I think we are already heading down that road, with or without ID. We didn't have to assume a bird was intelligently designed before we started trying to devise flying machines.

Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 11:10:46 AM)
quote: I think we are already heading down that road, with or without ID. We didn't have to assume a bird was intelligently designed before we started trying to devise flying machines. Oh, I agree, I think it's inevitable because I think that the more we learn about living systems the more we realize the degree of sophistication involved in their composition; at that point, i think conjectures about how they might have arisen become secondary.

unclemonkey -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 1:51:47 PM)
ORIGINAL:swan42 quote: ID must falsify evolution Wrong. Evolution and ID are entirely compatible. quote: falsify abiogenesis How does one falsify a fairytale? quote: This makes ID about as useless (or useful) an endeavor as SETI is. The unlikelihood of SETI finding extraterrestrial intelligence, or perceived usefulness of such a discovery has absolutely no bearing on its scientific validity. The process SETI uses to search is scientific as is the process used by ID. If ID in not a valid science then neither is archeology. When an archeologist determines a rock is not simply a rock but a stone tool is he not using a scientific process. You don�t think it a useful endeavor to combat the brainwashing of innocent school children with atheist dogma?

swan42 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 2:30:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:swan42 quote: falsify abiogenesis How does one falsify a fairytale? By locating evidence of an extra-terrestrial origin of life or natural evidence a super-natural origin of life. The former begs more questions, the latter might answer more questions. Both will falsify a fairytale. In any case, the probability of either method of falsification is speculatively high or low. quote: quote: This makes ID about as useless (or useful) an endeavor as SETI is. The unlikelihood of SETI finding extraterrestrial intelligence, or perceived usefulness of such a discovery has absolutely no bearing on its scientific validity. The process SETI uses to search is scientific as is the process used by ID. If ID in not a valid science then neither is archeology. When an archeologist determines a rock is not simply a rock but a stone tool is he not using a scientific process. I agree with the above and have never indicated otherwise.

Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 2:37:06 PM)
quote: Only if the purpose of ID has nothing to do with the Wedge document. Even if that were so, they would still be wholly compatible provided evolution isn't a metaphysical consideration. quote: By looking for inconsistencies. Well, no, that isn't how falsification proceeds; because if the scenario is imaginary to begin with, one can always imagine a possible response to the presumed inconsistency; ask any parent who wants his child to believe in Santa Clause. Falsification proceeds by first having a solid statement which can be demonstrated to be false by a straight forward demonstration, as in: All swans are white.

swan42 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 2:43:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Only if the purpose of ID has nothing to do with the Wedge document. Even if that were so, they would still be wholly compatible provided evolution isn't a metaphysical consideration. quote: By looking for inconsistencies. Well, no, that isn't how falsification proceeds; because if the scenario is imaginary to begin with, one can always imagine a possible response to the presumed inconsistency; ask any parent who wants his child to believe in Santa Clause. Falsification proceeds by first having a solid statement which can be demonstrated to be false by a straight forward demonstration, as in: All swans are white. You caught me mid-edit. I need to think more carefully next time. All swans are not white, but I digress. I discovered my Christmas presents from Santa Claus in the car trunk.. that was a major inconsistency. Possible responses have to be plausible. It is possible some fairytales are so completely self-consistent that no inconsistency can be detected. This is how schizophrenia is often diagnosed. In any case, if abiogenesis is a fairytale and abiogenesis is 100% self-consistent, then I predict abiogenesis will never be falsified, even if abiogenesis is incorrect.

Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 2:45:10 PM)
quote: You caught me mid-edit. I need to think more carefully next time. All swans are not white, but I digress. Well, yes, I know all swans aren't white. That is the point. quote: I discovered my Christmas presents from Santa Claus in the car trunk.. that was a major inconsistency. Possible responses have to be plausible. Sure; but that discovery didn't falsify Santa, only made him less plausible.

swan42 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 2:58:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I discovered my Christmas presents from Santa Claus in the car trunk.. that was a major inconsistency. Possible responses have to be plausible. Sure; but that discovery didn't falsify Santa, only made him less plausible. Yep. Absolutely correct. Somethings cannot be known for certain. My case is that ID's only method of proof is to falsify other theories, ID's only method of gaining plausibility is to make other theories implausible. That's a big mountain to climb.

Method -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 3:23:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: unclemonkey ORIGINAL:Method quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud So is abiogenesis a scientific idea? It's a field of study that bridges chemistry and biology. According to your own words (testable hypothesis) it is not science. A field of study is a field of study. The RNA World hypothesis is science, and it is found in the field of abiogenesis. It's a very weak hypothesis right now, but scientists are investigating it right now.

Method -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 3:26:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud As long as there is grant money to be had from the gullible I suppose. Are you saying that we shouldn't fund scientists who challenge ID? quote: quote: By building on previous experiences. So forming hypotheses and testing then isn�t always necessary. That's what experience is, testing hypotheses. quote: They both consist of blindly and endlessly searching for phenomena we have no reason to believe exist. An IDist who claims that there is no other intelligence other than humans? EGADS. I think you have your wires crossed. quote: You can�t test it; I would try to prove it wrong. Trying to prove something wrong is testing it.

Jhud -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 3:33:55 PM)
quote: Yep. Absolutely correct. Somethings cannot be known for certain. My case is that ID's only method of proof is to falsify other theories, ID's only method of gaining plausibility is to make other theories implausible. That's a big mountain to climb. Well, no, I can think of a couple of statements ID makes that are readily falsifiable. The first would be that original information driven machinery cannot arise from unguided sources. The second is that the original cellular information systems and molecular machinery did not arise cannot arise by unguided forces. A third would be that objects that exhibit of irreducible complexity cannot arise from unguided forces. Another would be that structures or systems whose specified complexity exceeds the universal probability bound cannot arise by unguided forces. All of these are readily falsifiable.

Method -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 3:40:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, no, I can think of a couple of statements ID makes that are readily falsifiable. The first would be that original information driven machinery cannot arise from unguided sources. The second is that the original cellular information systems and molecular machinery did not arise cannot arise by unguided forces. A third would be that objects that exhibit of irreducible complexity cannot arise from unguided forces. Another would be that structures or systems whose specified complexity exceeds the universal probability bound cannot arise by unguided forces. All of these are readily falsifiable. All of this work is currently moving along, but you have already stated that funding such research is for the gullible people. Why is that? Also, has the D in ID been observed doing any of this stuff? If not, then you theory is completely devoid of observations.

unclemonkey -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 4:04:27 PM)
ORIGINAL:Method quote: It's a very weak hypothesis right now, but scientists are investigating it right now. Abiogenesis is nothing more than atheist dogma. Teaching school children that life arose by aboigenesis is brainwashing them with atheist dogma. The response I constantly see to this is that schools only teach that life may have arisen via abiogeneses. Well, if it is ok for schools to teach that then what is wrong with schools teaching also that the origin of life may require a supernatural source? After all, in all honesty science doesn�t have the answer and it is not scientifically proper to arbitrarily rule out any possibility.

swan42 -> RE: S.E.T.I and Intelligent life outside of Earth. (5/8/2008 4:13:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Yep. Absolutely correct. Somethings cannot be known for certain. My case is that ID's only method of proof is to falsify other theories, ID's only method of gaining plausibility is to make other theories implausible. That's a big mountain to climb. Well, no, I can think of a couple of statements ID makes that are readily falsifiable. The first would be that original information driven machinery cannot arise from unguided sources. The second is that the original cellular information systems and molecular machinery did not arise cannot arise by unguided forces. A third would be that objects that exhibit of irreducible complexity cannot arise from unguided forces. Another would be that structures or systems whose specified complexity exceeds the universal probability bound cannot arise by unguided forces. All of these are readily falsifiable. Trying to prove any of these like trying to prove man can't fly in 1776 only to smacked with news of the Wright Brothers success in 1903. In practice, an indeterminate amount of time can elapse, centuries or even millenniums, where one believes a false conclusion that is proven wrong by an unguided force. Yes ID has a falsifiable premise. Unfortunately, instead of spending time in a organic chemistry lab attempting to create component, from random sub-components, that are considered irreducibly complex, ID proponents dwell on thought experiments that have pre ordained outcomes. ID proponents should spend less time refuting evolution and more time disproving ID. ID's only method of proof is to falsify other theories. I'd like to see other methods employed so we can move on from ID and get on with our lives. Unfortunately, just because we can appear to simulate abiogenesis doesn't mean abiogenesis actually occurred. Just because we can appear to simulate ID, doesn't mean ID actually occurred. I think there is irreducible complexity, but I think irreducible complexity occurs at the sub-atomic size.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI