Re: Science = 100% falsifiability? Really?

Seanpit wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:55 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
On Dec 13, 4:44 pm, Rupert Morrish <rup...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
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.
Not true. 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 (1GHz - 3GHz).
Hmmmmm . . . why then do you think SETI hasn't presented the narrow
band 1.42GHz signal as an artifact? Any suggestions? Hint: Because
it is known to have a natural non-deliberate cause. That's why. That
means that they are in fact looking for signals that are thought to be
well beyond the range of natural production.
A 1Hz-width signal at 1.43GHz would be a candidate signal. Why is this
"well beyond the range of natural production"? What do you mean when you
say "range"?

Answer the question, please.

Everyone gets the concept, but you seem to be ignoring the other half of
the grid - SETI are explicitly not searching for any signals that cannot
be made by humans.
I never said otherwise. It is quite hard to imagine a signal that
couldn't be made by humans (given limited power supplies that we have
available of course).
Known natural cause / Known artificial cause: Not searching
Known natural cause / Unknown artificial cause: Not searching
Unknown natural cause / Known artificial cause: SEARCHING
Unknown natural cause / Unknown artificial cause: Not searching
Again, finding a radio signal with an unknown natural cause would most
likely be within the range of what we humans could actually produce
(again, given that the signal was within our limited power supply
capabilities). So, finding a signal pattern, like something that
matches a particular mathematical formula, like pi, e, the Fibonacci
series, or various forms of complex signal symmetry, would be very
good evidence of artifact.
Which SETI projects are looking for such signals? Actually, which SETI
projects are doing any analysis of the content of the signal at all?

Answer the questions, please.

If we think it's an artifact, we can test hypotheses of how it was
created. If there's no tool marks, it doesn't mean it's not an artifact,
but it does mean that we don't know how it was made, and we should be
less confident that it is an artifact.
Tool marks can also be tricky. How are the tool marks themselves
made? You might know how they could be made, but that, by itself,
doesn't given you any clue if they are or are not artifactual
markings.
Yes, it does. That's why they're called tool marks, and not "random
scratchings that give us no clues".

Nature can make non-random markings as well. You have to have at
least some idea as to the limits of what nature can do before you'd
have any idea that the markings you think to be "tool marks" could not
be closely mimiced by some non-deliberate force of nature.

No. We don't put limits on what nature can do. We say that such marks have not been observed to occur naturally. I am not surprised that a mind capable of accepting creationism, which explicitly places limits on what God can do, has difficulty with this distinction.


The same thing is true for the object or phenomenon in
question. It is often very easy to determine how it could be made.
Yet, this is not enough. You also have to have at least some idea as
to how it could not be made.
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
-----------------www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com- *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
------------------ Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------

.

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: SETI, DNA, and intelligent pattern recognition
    ... >>> searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. ... couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? ... >>> signals? ... >>> to the pattern analysis stage yet. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SETI, DNA, and intelligent pattern recognition
    ... >> searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. ... couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? ... >> signals? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SETI, DNA, and intelligent pattern recognition
    ... > comparison is made between SETI searching for intelligent signals and ... > searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. ... SETI is often considered a ... Well, you'll find something that has a pattern, anyway. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SETI, DNA, and intelligent pattern recognition
    ... >> searching for intelligent patterns in DNA. ... couldn't the same be said about a SETI signal? ... >> signals? ... >> to the pattern analysis stage yet. ...
    (talk.origins)