Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?

On Dec 13, 12:49 pm, richardalanforr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

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!

Yes, because they are known to be naturally produced. They are
therefore looking for signals that are thought to be well beyond the
range of natural production.

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

You just listed a quote were SETI scientists are in fact trying to
distinguish between natural and artifactual signals by finding a type
of signal that is produced by one and not the other. Can wide
spectral widths be produced by deliberate manufacture? Sure. We know
this for a fact. Can narrow spectral widths be produced by deliberate
manufacture? Yep. We know this for a fact too. Can wide spectral
widths be produced by natural processes? Uh huh - We also know this
for a fact. So, what is left Richard - to tell the difference between
the two? Obviously, the fact that we do not yet know of any natural
process that produces a narrow spectral width is the only option
left.

That is how SETI scientists "distinguish" between the two
possibilities of natural and artifactual production. This is what the
above paragraph means when it uses the word "distinguish" - i.e., they
are finding features that are unique to artifactual production in that
they are not found as the product of natural non-deliberate
generation. I'm still at a loss to understand why, exactly, you
cannot seem to grasp this concept.

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?

Not without knowing that non-deliberate processes do not come remotely
close to producing the same type of signal. Without this information
regarding the limits of non-deliberate processes acting on the medium
in question, you could not make this conclusion. If you had
absolutely no prior experience with nature as it interacted with
radiowaves, you'd have no idea if a narrow band signal was or was not
a likely artifact. How do you not get that?

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 because it is *impossible* to completely rule out non-
artifactual origin - even for your favorite "tool marks". This is
what I've been trying to get across to you all along. It is
IMPOSSIBLE to completely rule out a natural non-deliberate origin for
any such phenomenon. This does not mean that such a possibility
cannot be known to be highly unlikely to a useful degree of confidence
or "significance".

< snip rest >

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A question for Sean Pitman.
    ... failed utterly to provide any evidence to support your assertion. ... How would you test the hypothesis that it is an artifact? ... That's what the SETI scientists say. ... But the point is that such narrow-band signals ...
    (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. ... 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: Kenneth Millers Interview with NOVA
    ... they KNOW intelligent agents create for specific purposes. ... of signals and other phenomena that cannot be readily distinguished ... SETI scientists really don't need to know why a alien intelligence ... artifact just like finding a highly symetrical polished granite cube ...
    (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)