🚀 go-pugleaf

road_w...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Still, I question the need as a recent article in SciAm
> indicated that well over half the space where we might
> reasonably expect ET to be found has already been
> searched and found empty.  SETI is little more than
> a faith search for some magic sky pixie for which we
> have no evidence whatsoever.

Since the search is limited to a narrow frequency band, and it requires
that the signal is present when the search is on that frequency and
looking in that direction, it is not unexpected that the search is
currently negative. There are many assumptions that need to be filled
before a positive result will be obtained.

Although I process work units for SETI and I think there is a extremely
high probability (essentially, a certainty) that life exists elsewhere,
I do not believe that it will detect intelligence life for the reasons
above. So, why do it? Because I think the value from SETI will come as
an incidental to the prime task. As such, I do not believe that it is a
waste. Knowledge gathered using good observational techniques is never a
waste - it will be ultimately used for a worthwhile project even if the
original purpose fades.

A faith search for some magic sky pixie for which we have no evidence?
The "magic sky pixie" bit I can't comment on, but I agree that there is
no direct evidence. However, this does not mean that one should not look
for evidence. There are many things that have been found simply by
looking (and often when looking for something else). Even (real)
scientific research into psychic phenomena (which I don't believe in)
has value even of the concept under study is incorrect as it is sure to
come across some aspects that where previously unknown.

The only wasted research is that which does not follow scientific
procedures. This sort of data is useless for any purpose, immediate or
future.



Mark.