Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?

On Dec 13, 10:40 am, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

SETI scientists have also
published various criteria for determining deliberate vs. non-
deliberate phenomena.

They have?
Where?

SETI has set it's search parameters to look for signals which have
characteristics of those made by known processes, and which therefore
makes them good candidates for extraterrestrial civilisations.

I've explained this to you dozens of times before. It is not enough
to search for signals which have characteristics of those made by
known processes if the particular known process can actually be
closely approximated by a non-deliberate natural process. That is why
SETI scientists do not simply look for what can or has been produced
by a known process. Known processes are known that can and have
produced very natural-looking signals. So, simply looking for a known
process is not enough to detect the difference of an artifactual
signal from a natural signal. That differentiation requires that SETI
look for something that is uniquely different from what non-deliberate
processes of nature also produce.

That is why SETI is looking for a narrow-band signal or a signal that
contains the first million digits of pi repeated over and over again.
Why? Because such signals are known to be within the manufacturing
capabilities of humans? Would this be enough to tell artifact from
non-artifact? No. Because, if a natural process was known that could
also produce narrow-band signals or signals carrying the first million
digits of pi repeated over and over again, such features would no
longer be clearly artifactual.

For some specific references regarding SETI scientists efforts to
distinguish natural from artifactual signals:

"SETI Institute signal detection expert Kent Cullers, whose clear
thinking routinely enlightens both novice and savant, describes the
merits of narrow-band radio signals by comparing them to their audio
counterparts.
"Imagine the roar of the ocean or the rustling of leaves in a
high wind," he says. "For these natural events, the sound is produced
simultaneously from many unsynchronized sources. If we plot the
frequencies present in such natural events and compare them to
artificial sounds, such as a tuning fork or an auto horn, a startling
difference appears. *Natural* signals have a rather broad frequency
spectrum, but the artificial ones usually don't." [Emphasis Added]

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_shostak_artificial_030130.html

Notice the effort in this case of Cullers to look for a signal that
was distinctly different from what known non-deliberate natural
processes produce. He clearly notes the difference between what non-
deliberate natural processes produce with regard to a certain
characteristic vs. artifactual processes.

Here's another related reference:

"We listed at the outset several of the hallmarks of
artificiality, which we can expect to be exhibited an electromagnetic
emission of intelligent origin. The common denominator of all these
characteristics, in fact of all human (and we anticipate, alien)
existence, is that they are anti-entropic. Any emission which appears
(at least at the outset) to defy entropy is a likely candidate for an
intelligently generated artifact. In that regard, periodicity is a
necessary, though not a sufficient, condition for artificiality
(remembering once again the pulsar)."

http://www.setileague.org/articles/proof.htm

I'm not aware of any publication which attempts to distinguish between
"deliberate" and "non-deliberate" phenomena.

Then you haven't really looking into the subject very far.

< snip >

See also:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/meaningfulinformation.html#SETI

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A question for Sean Pitman.
    ... Beyond the fact that I've presented abundant evidence to support this ... How would you test the hypothesis that it is an artifact? ... SETI are looking for a radio signal of a type which they know can be ... by studying the types of signals which we produce using known ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... produced very natural-looking signals. ... That differentiation requires that SETI ... Would this be enough to tell artifact from ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... SETI has set it's search parameters to look for signals which have ... SETI scientists do not simply look for what can or has been produced ... produced very natural-looking signals. ... But the hypothesis of the signal being an artifact would be *weaker* for such a signal than for the sort of signals SETI is seeking. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Chez Watt: Artifacts without intelligent design?
    ... The word "artifact" means created by an intelligent agent. ... This is a summary of the SETI protocols: ... Since all SETI apart from optical SETI uses radio signals, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... published various criteria for determining deliberate vs. non- ... produced very natural-looking signals. ... Which is why SETI scientists are not looking for such signals! ...
    (talk.origins)