Crichton: “Aliens Cause Global Warming”
Here’s another excellent Crichton speech, well worth reading.
[Hat tip: commenter “IgotBupkis.”]
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Here’s another excellent Crichton speech, well worth reading.
[Hat tip: commenter “IgotBupkis.”]
“”There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.””
That should be on billboards all over the country. Hell all over the ignorant world.
Thank you thank you thank you for linking to this Crichton speech.
One thing particularly tickled me. As I was reading about Paul Ehrlich and Nuclear Winter, Paul Ehrlich and four billion people starving the thought kept popping up that Ehrlich seemed to have gone the Wizard of Oz one better because no matter how many times his curtain got pulled back he’d just re-close it and head to his next dog and pony show with the media hanging on his every utterance.
Then I saw this phrase:
and I thought,
Say, isn’t she…? so I Googled her and guess what:
Come to think of it, another good example of politics trumping science can be seen in the frequent assertions that, despite having a vagina, a uterus, ovaries and two X chromosomes, Sarah Palin isn’t a woman.
The history of science is littered with consensus. What makes anthropomorphic global warming so egregious is that its all based on incredibly complex computer models as its only form of ‘data’.
Thanks for pointing out another outstanding Crichton speech.
Outstanding, neo, thanks for posting the link. I am now convinced that second-hand smoke caused us to strike the Libyans.
Seriously, after reading Crichton, I intend to pull down my old copy of _Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds_ for another read.
This, BTW, if Wikipedia’s “take” on this speech:
“In the spirit of his SF writing”? What the hell does that mean? Suggesting that his speech isn’t factual? LOL, if it wasn’t so defectively misleading.
I also point any of you once more to his speech on Complexity Theory and Environmental Management — see my post in the earlier Crichton entry.
Yeah, Ehrlich’s a useless scumbag.
I keep thinking of The Heavy Metal Movie, the Captain Sternn segment:
Hanover Fiste: He’s nothing but a low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous perverted worm! Hanging’s too good for him! Burning’s too good for him! He should be torn into little bitsy pieces and buried alive!
Totally over the top, of course, which is one of the fun aspects of the animated movie, but the description still fits.
Another person one should be familiar with, esp. if you’re out to debate idiot libtards and their quack heroes, is the late Julian Simon. In particular, it’s good to be aware of The Wager
Actually, this speech by Crichton is a huge failure, and makes him look like an idiot.
Consider his central point: that the Drake Equation includes a lot of unknowns, and therefore SETI research is a lot of hooey.
That reveals a profound misunderstanding of science. The Drake Equation indeed includes many unknowns. That’s the point! Drake was trying to identify the unknowns as a direction for further research! He was also trying to come up with ways to limit the “search space” for attempts to detect alien civilizations. Nowhere does the Drake Equation — or Frank Drake, or Jill Tarter, or any other scientist involved in SETI research — say that the equation “proves” the existence of alien intelligence.
Crichton is either spouting off about a subject he doesn’t really understand, or he’s being deliberately dishonest. Neither brings credit upon him, and neither supports his suspicions about climate research.
“”As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science.””
Nuff said.
I must have misunderstood the utility of equations over the years. The point was always made by my professors that they had predictive power. Without the ability to pinpoint a solution they were of no use. Ask a CERN physicist or an aviation engineer which of their useful equations fall into the non-predictive category.
I can write an equation on the number of fairies in the forest and have many interesting conversations. But that is not science; it would immediately be seen from the subject to be nonsense. Continued belief in the existence of fairies in the absence of proof, even with an equation, is a faith-based exercise in numerology.
The lack of proof of absence is not the same as proof of existence, but the faithful often treat it so. After all, the fairies might be just behind the next rock. Did I look there?
Crichton’s comments on the Drake equation point to its lack of predictive power. (You only get to question of independent reproduction of results IF you find something.)
The Drake Equation isn’t predictive, it’s descriptive. It’s a framework for estimating how many civilizations might exist.
But SETI research isn’t based on plugging variables into the equation and then saying “See! They exist! Let’s look for them!”
SETI research is all about gathering data. Trying to fill in those unknowns.
“SETI research is about gathering data. Trying to fill in those unknowns…”
So… Um, How’s that going?
Trimegistus, right. Now, tell me precisely what it is that the equation describes. Solve the equation for me–I’d be interested in knowing what’s on the other side of the equality.
Yeti or SETI, I say it’s spaghetti.
I think Trimegistus does not understand the burden placed upon the scientific method I have no problem with SETI researchers listening for extra terrestrial signals for a thousand years, it is fine by me, but I have a problem with that silly equation. An equation in which all variables are unknowable is not an equation. It is akin to tossing bones or interpreting the entrails of a sheep to discern the future.
Trimegistus:
An old woman wearing a red dress with a wart on her nose, and missing her front teeth walks by my farm and 2 days later my cow dies; ergo all old women wearing a red dress with a wart on their nose and missing their front teeth must be a witch. Do you want to stone all old women in red dresses with a wart on their nose and missing their front teeth because they must be witches?
Parker: an equation with all unknowns could be somewhat scientific if it expresses the relationship between things, such as x=2y. The SETI equation isn’t like that, because all it really seems to be saying is that it’s a list of things that would be involved, but we can’t quantify any of them and don’t even know their relation to each other, except that the earlier ones are larger than the later ones (the later ones represent subsets of the earlier ones).
Yes, neo-neocon the SETI equation is not like that…. I happen to have some bones handy… perhaps I’ll toss them upon the carpet and ask my cats to interpret them. 🙂
BTW, if all variables are unknown, the solution to the equation can not be calculated. As I wrote this largely meaningless post I was listening to Lady Antebellum’s great interpretation of Learning to Fly (Tom Petty).
The message is the good old days can not return. To me this means we have to keep moving forward holding true to the values we hold that survive the test of time while being open to new information and knowledge. If we stand still we become ossified statues eroded by water and wind.
“I started out down a dirty road
Started out all alone
And the sun came down as I crossed the hill
And the town lit up, the world got still.
I’m learning to fly, but I ain’t got wings.
Coming down is the hardest of things.
The good old days may not return
The rocks might melt and the seas may burn.
I’m learning to fly, but I ain’t got wings
Coming down is the hardest thing.
Some say life will beat you down
Break your heart and steal your crown.
Started out for god knows where
Guess I’ll know when I get there.
I’m learning to fly around the clouds
But what goes up, must come down
I’m learning to fly, but I ain’t got wings
Coming down is the hardest of things.”
You’re still not getting it. To use the old woman analogy:
The Parker Equation would be as follows: N is the number of old women with red dresses and warts on their noses walking past your house. We can define N = O * R * W * H, where O is the number of old women in your town, R is the proportion of them who wear red, W is the proportion with warts on their noses, and H is the fraction whose daily walk takes them past your house.
It doesn’t have any “predictive” power, but it tells you the things you need to know in order to make it predictive. That’s what the Drake Equation was designed to do.
Crichton seems to think that because Frank Drake wrote out his equation, SETI is based on fiction. The analogy with the Parker Equation would be that since we don’t know the number of women who wear red or have warts, there are no old women at all. That does not follow.
I think a lot of commenters are defending Crichton because they agree with his conclusions about climate science. I agree with him on that as well, but I think the SETI example is a terrible one, and only weakens the argument.
Trimegistus: I don’t have time to re-read the Crichton article now, but I don’t recall that he’s saying there is no intelligent life other than us in the universe that would be able to communicate with us. He’s merely saying that the equation doesn’t tell us anything useful or especially scientific about the chances of it.
It’s the basis for estimating the abundance of intelligent life. And at least some of the factors in the Drake Equation are known — with more of them getting nailed down. That’s what it’s FOR.
Crichton’s attitude is that since all the terms of the equation aren’t known, the whole SETI enterprise is so much mumbo-jumbo. That’s simply wrong and Crichton does himself no favors by saying so.
Here’s another analogy, a bit closer to reality: suspect profiling. Suppose you’re a Homeland Security officer. You know that terrorists tend to be young, male, and Muslim. You don’t know the exact age ranges, and you don’t know what fraction of Muslims are radical, but that’s a basis for making your search.
Now most of us think it’s crazy for DHS to refuse to use profiling because it would mean innocent Muslim men would get searched. But that’s exactly the same logic Crichton is using: if the result isn’t known exactly, the whole profile (or equation) is meaningless.
“”Crichton’s attitude is that since all the terms of the equation aren’t known, the whole SETI enterprise is so much mumbo-jumbo.””
It is mumbo jumbo. You could write a similar formula for the search of unicorns in the world. Just because you have some idea that unicorns might require food and water and you know approximately how much land mass is on earth that might cater`to this, the equation reveals ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Well except a bias for someone who desperately wants unicorns to be thought to exist without any evidence whatsoever.
Trimegistus,
I could devise an equation to determine the color of the sky on planet Q67W3E in galaxy R8T96Y4 that is ZP million light years from earth but it would be meaningless. I have no way of knowing anything about Q67W3E. Since I have no values to plug into a single variable in my imaginary equation I can not compute the possible colors of the sky on Q67W3E.
Instead, I will simply state that the color of the sky on Q67W3E is tunxcer on Tuesdays and lkgimsvb on Thursdays and on all other days its aldksjheiim.
“It’s the basis for estimating the abundance of intelligent life.”
Really? How? Teach me.
Personally, I think it’s a basis for a full-beer conversation, which I know I would enjoy, but it contains not a single known fact.
neo hit the key points, but it’s worth pointing out that you keep repeating the same thing without offering evidence for old arguments or new improved arguments. Speculation may be a wonderful way to start a scientific endeavor, but science does not end there.
The SETI folks are doing the right thing by engaging in research. I doubt they make any particular use of Drake’s equation.
I keep repeating the same explanation because you keep arguing a completely irrelevant point.
I’ll stop now, with the suggestion that people actually read up on the subject instead of believing Crichton’s third-hand account. A good place to start is Paul Davies’ book The Eerie Silence, or the many resources available at the SETI institute web page (http://www.seti.org/)
Trimegistus, do you mean the same Paul Davies who has offered a “surer path to God than religion?” I think his age is showing.
My point, repeated or not, has nothing to do with Crichton. It has everything to do with whether or not you understand how equations work.
All you need to do is simply type the proportionality constant(s) associated with Drake into the little white box. I promise I’ll be convinced then.