Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Diamond
You extrapolate from a dataset of only one?
|
At one time we had only
one sample of a planetary system. That did not render ampliative inferences of the possibility of extrasolar planets pseudoscientific.
Quote:
|
Question: How do you falsify a theory with no results and no criteria for deciding true or false statements?
|
The statements that radio signals from advanced life (
a) are produced in the universe, and (
b) can be differentiated from natural radio noise have been confirmed. The SETI hypothesis is that the casual mechanism of the said phenomenon might not be confined to one location (Earth).
Quote:
|
It certainly isn't there to falsify the hypothesis, since that would require proof of (literally) a Universal negative. SETI is unfalsifiable.
|
Life can be detected. Anything that could be detected is not outside scientific inquiry. Sure, whether given ET data are from life or not is something that would be and is debated (as they come in). But the fact that terrestrial artificial radio signals can be detected against background noise demonstrates that life-sourced radio signals
can be detected.
Quote:
|
OK. Lets form a group called "The Search for God", searching the skies trying to find evidence of a Supreme Being. Do you think this has any more scientific validity than an experiment without theoretic underpinning, proof or falsifiable hypothesis?
|
Once again,
life has already been detected, on Earth. On the other hand no God or Gods have ever been detected; so the analogy is false.