Re: "Humans Do It Now" Criteria (was: Definition Challenge)


"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155881905.579928.291930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155792352.453815.77020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155706448.727825.319130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155619313.468927.7520@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155537566.473954.115140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

There are several avenues for further testing along these lines.
Stronger
theories of abiogenesis, or planetary formation. The detection of
free
oxygen in a planetary atmosphere. The detection of narrow-band
radio
signals
with a distinctive doppler shift.

Perhaps. But DNA-ID may have its own "bonuses". These bonuses are
not
a requirement. Stop making up bogus requirements.


And those bonuses are what exactly?

We don't know ahead of time. A message may tell where to find more
messages or more evidence, for example.


In other words, you waved your hands.

No, the possibility is there. If pre-known possible bonuses are a
formal requirement, then please say so. Otherwise stop proding around
for phoney rules.


You said, "But DNA-ID may have its own 'bonuses'". I was just wondering
what those might be. SETI results will help fix the plausible frequency of
ETI in the galaxy. Other experiments mentioned previously will help fix the
frequency of ET in the galaxy.



Yes, searching for Martian cities on
the Moon may have bonuses. By the way, did you ever answer the question.
Does the assertion of Lunar-Gray Martian cities on the Moon represent a
valid scientific hypothesis?

Will somebody please explain to this guy why I don't find that a valid
question? I don't want to give him a lesson on continuous versus
boolean. He should have learned that in college.

As there is no "test" that would cause you to abandon your claim, you are
not proposing a valid hypothesis.

Again again again again, what test would cause seti to "abandon their
claim"????


If you mean their working hypothesis, that would be a narrow-band signal in
the posited frequency. SETI does not claim there is life in the galaxy.
*Other* scientists have developed strong evidence that life on Earth is a
natural consequence and likely not unique. SETI's mission is based upon this
empirical knowledge.

SETI: The mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and
explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe.


<snip>



Further, the
seeding could be automated or remote-controlled such that beings don't
have to physically set foot.


There is no evidence of robotic visitation either. Science would choose
the
most parsimonious methodologies with the greatest chance of success. For
instance, looking for free oxygen in the atmosphere of extra-Solar
planets.

We don't have that ability yet. The DNA codes for some species are
already available without spending hundreds of millions.


They are sooo available that you can download them and examine them
yourself. But you won't. But others have. And abstract patterns such as you
suggest have not been found. In fact, there are a great many patterns in
genomes, and all have so far been found to be due to ad hoc evolutionary
processes.



and of course, the
complete lack of actual evidence that someone has tampered with the
natural
course of evolution.

Irrelavent. The version I am testing does not have evolution alteration
as a pre-requisite.


There is no evidence of an abstract message in the genomes, which have
been
extensively analyzed for patterns.

Not ET-archeology. You have presented no evidence of anybody being paid
for such, or amatures doing it on a large scale.


Are there Martian cities on the Moon? Is this a valid scientific hypothesis?
Why or why not?



However, you are more than welcome to
examine the data, replicate the tests, or devise new tests. But nothing,
nothing you have proposed would be considered novel.

Maybe later. Now I am only concerned witih "testable".


test, the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or
operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or
rejection.



Thus, although it is probably a less likely form of
communication, it may be compensated by being a longer-lasting one.
The
"message in a bottle" article that I referenced generally seems to
agree. Go call them dummy stupid troll idiots also, don't save your
love just for me.


Hmm. I just read that article. They speculate about sending a message
to
the
future. Nothing about aliens.

I was not addressing the travel issue there.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/21/genetics-dna-computing-comm05-cx_mh_1024herper.html




Not to mention, you have no evidence that alien life has visited
Earth
to
manipulate its genomes.

And there is no evidence that ET is leaking radio waves.


Then they will publish their results and deal with the evidence.

Is such a promise a prerequisite to qualilfy???


Yes. Refusing to confront the evidence is a sure indication that you have
abandoned science.

You changed the subject.


The answer was "Yes." It is a requirement that you deal with the evidence.
Refusing to deal with the evidence means you aren't doing science.
Objectivity (which requires independent validation) is a requirement of the
scientific method.


You imply that some future promise is a
requirement to qualify, but will not flesh it out more. It is hard to
share information with people who avoid specificity.

Again, you remind me of marketers. I try to ask them questions to
extract what kind of algorithm they want me to put into the computer,
but they are somehow incapable. At least I can use trial-and-error via
feedback loops on them, but not you because you appear to shy way from
specifics. The marketers at least want a good end result. You seem to
enjoy the fuzz.


I'm sorry, but hammers make poor carpenters and computers make poor
scientists. Hammers and computers are tools.




Again, you appear to be making up rules out of the blue.

And, can you provide documentation of this SETI pledge?


Try their sections on Education and Public Outreach, or Publications.
Others
have already cited specific scientific journal articles.

It is not my job to find and drag your evidence into the court room.


This is so typical of you. You won't even look for the simplest of evidence
and wave away anything you don't want to know. I provided the link to the
SETI Institute. Today, right on their front page is an article which
references the SETI protocol on discovery.

Contact: What happens if a Signal is Found
"SETI experiments are intensely keen to find treasure, not to bury it"

SETI: Declaration of Principles Concerning Activities Following the
Detection of Extraterrestrial Intelligence
"A confirmed detection of extraterrestrial intelligence should be
disseminated promptly, openly, and widely through scientific channels and
public media, observing the procedures in this declaration. The discoverer
should have the privilege of making the first public announcement."
http://www.seti.org/site/pp.asp?c=ktJ2J9MMIsE&b=179287





SETI: The mission of the SETI Institute is to explore, understand and
explain the origin, nature and prevalence of life in the universe.
http://www.seti.org/

And how is the relevant to the above? DNA-ID may even fall under that
description, I would note. It is "seti looking down".


No. Because DNA-ID ignores what is already known about genomes, makes no
valid inferences from the available data, offers no novel observations or
predictions, and the obvious negative result would provides no new
knowledge.



After
considerable study, narrow-band signals with a distinct doppler
shift
in
a
specific range of frequencies was chosen for reasons described
previously.

Doppler shifts are not a requirement, only a bonus.


They are considered an important signature. Again, we are working
from
what
is known about how life develops, not randomly speculating.

Irrelavent. Doppler shifting is not a requirement for SETI's hypoth,
and may not even be there if ET is broadcasting from a ship. Another
bogus hurdle.


Actually, it is generally agreed that life would occur on a planet
with
liquid water. A signal with a planetary doppler shift would be much
more
likely to represent ETI. Any signal, no matter the origin would be
subject
to falsification, of course. Again, something you ignore.

That does not matter. Being on a planet is not a prerequisite. SETI
would not reject a signal or stop investigating just because it did not
have an orbiting pattern.


Any narrow-band signal would be assumed to be not ETI, and many efforts
would be made to explain the signal as non-artificial. A planetary
doppler-shift would be important.

If availabe, but NOT a prerequisite.


This again indicates your confusion on the scientific method. As I
mentioned, any narrow-band signal would be interesting. But theories
concerning the origin of life indicate they would evolve on planets, not
stars. Hence, we would look for the signals to come from their planets, or
perhaps, artificial satellites in orbit around their home star.




Unlike yourself, scientists can't just
make it up as they go along. They have to deal with the actual evidence.
A
signal without a doppler-shift would be interesting, but according to
current understanding, would be much less likely to be artifice.

Nobody really knows. It is all an ass-guess.


It's based on scientific discoveries concerning the origin of life on Earth
and the ubiquitous nature of organic chemistry throughout the galaxy.



So, I hypothesize there are Martian cities on the backside of
the
Moon.
Tell
us if you consider this a valid hypothesis.

Like I keep saying, hypothesisness (if there is such a word) is a
*continious* concept for those who understand science. As you use
it,
"Valid" is Boolean, which conflicts with continious.


I asked you a specific question. Is the Lunar-Martian City
assertion
as
valid hypothesis? Why or why not?

You appear not to understand the difference between Boolean an
Continuous. Your question is like asking if houses are tall.


I have provided a valid definition of hypothesis several times. You
consistently ignore it.

It is too vague as written to be an objective ruler. Pasting 100 times
will not change that. Vague is vague. I already pointed out at least 4
"wiggle words" that have not precise ruler with them.


In other words, you use the word "hypothesis" and "testable", but refuse
to
acknowledge their commonly accepted definitions, and substitute cryptic
ones
that validate your beliefs.

No, I am only saying they are too vague to be objectively used. It is
like a programming language with a MAYBE statement:
<snip>


I find the definitions reasonably clear. I think you just don't like them
because they don't allow you to continue conflating speculation and
scientific hypothesis. Though there are limitations to such types of
definitions, they are not without value.

theory, a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body
of principles offered to explain phenomena.

hypothesis, a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its
logical or empirical consequences.

test, the procedure of submitting a statement to such conditions or
operations as will lead to its proof or disproof or to its acceptance or
rejection.

http://www.m-w.com/



--
Zachriel
"The scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat."
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Fails SETI also (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... such as that being tested by the SETI ... the valid scientific hypothesis that since life evolved here it ... Given the seemingly almost unlimited number of planets ... structures are irreducibly complex, essentially because scientists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Fails SETI also (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... such as that being tested by the SETI ... the valid scientific hypothesis that since life evolved here it ... Given the seemingly almost unlimited number of planets ... structures are irreducibly complex, essentially because scientists ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Commit to your bogus rules (SETI vs. DNA-ID)
    ... If it is not precise evidence, then we are back to the very same ... Answering vague claims with vague evidence is of limited ... I only have to be as clear as SETI. ... Many scientists believe that SETI is speculative, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Commit to your bogus rules (SETI vs. DNA-ID)
    ... However, when there differing viewpoints, ... You have no evidence whatsoever. ... I point out your complaints about SETI are just that, complaints not related to the facts. ... Many scientists believe that SETI is speculative, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Humans Do It Now" Criteria (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... Zachriel wrote: ... messages or more evidence, for example. ... but it is NOT a requirement for SETI. ... *Other* scientists have developed strong evidence that life on Earth is a ...
    (talk.origins)