Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?

On Dec 13, 8:00 pm, Seanpit <seanpitnos...@naturalselection.
0catch.com> wrote:
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.

Which is why SETI scientists are not looking for such 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's not what SETI scientists say.

They say (and I quote from their web site)
"The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter
from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e.
how much room on the radio dial do they take up? Any signal less than
about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced."

http://www.seti.org/about-us/faq.php#anchor321907

Saying that they are looking for signals from a transmitter is rather
a strong hint they are looking for signal made by *known* processes,
wouldn't you? Note also the use of the phrase "as far as we know" in
the last sentence. So even if they find a strong candidate signal,
they are not ruling out the possibility that it is natural.


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.

They are?
Their web site makes no mention of this.
What do you know that the SETI institute doesn't?

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.


It's a pity for you that SETI is not looking for such a signal then,
isn't it?


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


So they are looking for *candidate* signals with characteristics of
those produced by *known* manufacturing processes. In fact, they are
looking specifically for a signal with characteristics of those
produced by man-made transmitters. That's what their web site say,
anyway.


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


So they have identified characteristics of signals produced by humans
*by known processes*, and are looking for *candidate* signals with
those characteristics. They are *not* looking for signals produced by
*unknown* processes based on some general characteristic of
"deliberate" processes.

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.

Well, you seem to be claiming that you have.

So how about a citation?

Surely you don't just expect others to take your word for it?

I'll take your evasion as just more evidence that you are making
unfounded assertions.


< snip >


So who *do* you think is capable of understanding your "theory", Sean?

It's very obvious that you are not persuading anyone here, which
rather supports my hypothesis that you post here to strut your ego in
front of an ignorant and gullible creationist audience.

Of course, you could falsify my hypothesis by writing up your "theory"
as an academic paper and submitting it for publication in an academic
journal.

All you are doing is providing me with verification.

RF

See also:

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

Sean Pitmanwww.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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. ... Would this be enough to tell artifact from ...
    (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: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... produced very natural-looking signals. ... The hydrogen line at 1.42GHz is exactly the sort of narrow-band signal that SETI is looking for, and they are searching for signals in the same frequency range. ... If we think it's an artifact, we can test hypotheses of how it was created. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?
    ... produced very natural-looking signals. ... Which is why SETI scientists are not looking for such signals! ... a likely artifact. ...
    (talk.origins)