h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I don’t have any connection with, or any abiding interest in, the SETI program. For that matter, they same goes for organized religion. Yet, even I have to object to the equation of SETI with religion in your otherwise worthwhile and splendid entry; not because of the theological or secular implications, but because it show a basic unfamiliarity with the English dictionary (as does your misspelling of the ‘etymologically’ as etymilogically).

Science is not a religion, and religion will never be a science. Religion, by definition, will deal with a deity or deities, worship, service, and beliefs. SETI is based not on the belief or worship of extraterrestrials (who, by definition, would not be gods), but on the question of whether they exist (even if an answer seems presumed), the province of the scientific exploration mindset.

The SETI program, like many programs, is simply set up to potentially answer this long-unanswerable question. I believe those who fear or dislike it are more concerned with the theological implications that the discovery of extra-terrestrial life might have, than with the scientific knowledge gained. As stated, the choices are: there is life out there, or there is not. Not finding signs of it cannot prove it does not exist. Therefore, the only pertinent outcome would be if signs of life were found, and could be proven to be sentient in origin.

The results, however, are inconsequential to the technological advances that are likely to be achieved, merely from the attempt. Just as advances in weapons technology have made many modern conveniences possible (let us not get into a debate about the relative merits of technology v death, we would probably agree), this effort could lead to medical, computer science, and artificial intelligence advances. This does not even consider the vast amount that can be discovered about our universe.

We also dare not become so easily convinced that we already know enough about space to draw conclusions such as ‘how rare and exceptional our kind of planet is’, when the smallest planets we can detect are many times that of our own.

"in your otherwise worthwhile and splendid entry?"

are we reading the same one, or has it just had a mojor update?

there are numerous flaws in the artcle, which I pointed out in detail in one of the attached threads when the author asked what was wrong with it.

you might want to read the criticism before giving it glowing references.

Perhaps you missed the joke. Worthwhile and splended were a reference to the speech being made by Lady Whats-her-name at the bulldozing of Arthur Dent's house, just prior to the Vogon attack. She was explaining how the destruction of their quaint little cruddy village would rise reborn an the splendid and worthwhile petrol station, "offering rest and comfort to every weary traveler on his way."

Since I disagreed with the basic tenet of the piece, that of SETI being a bunch of religious zealots devoid of science, and his pitiful attempt to say that we are 'rare', and even made fun of his spelling, I'd hardly call it a glowing reference.

Perhaps you should also get a dictionary.

Anyway, the author is entitled to an opinion, as are you, as am I.

Perhaps you read every thread before you post, but I suspect that mine was up first. You may have left criticism before my thread, but that doesn't assure me that your criticism is valid; or, at least, any more valid than mine.

xyroth, perhaps he has just been exposed to some of the more fervent and out-there members. This guide is hardly replete with profound knowledge of the subjects on which most researchers report.

If you need proof, check out my probably inadequate series on "Wilderness Survival on Earth". I'm sure you will help me correct it, as you have attempted to help this piece's author.

Yours in HGTTG,

Well, I happen to come back out of curiousity to read your scathing criticism of the SETI piece, and guess what? It ain't here!

Apparently I HAD read all of the notes before leaving mine. Perhaps you can let me know what your problems with it were. I'd be interested to know what you had found.

well, it is there, post 42 in the peer review thread.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/FFM48874?thread=257209&skip=40&show=20#p3405649

Ah, so your first message meant that you found my beginning of a thread on the discuss-this-entry page and felt that I should scour the site for your missive before responding to the piece?

Let us set aside the fact that you misinterpreted my perhaps strained humour. I agree that the article is biased and dismissive in many spots. I don't find that unusual on a self-serve website. The piece may never get to edited status, and I'm not suggesting that it should, but the author is entitled to his own set of filters.

I understand your complaints (thanks for the link, btw), and agree with much of it. However, one has to wonder if you would have been as thorough in your criticism if he had been just as biased and dismissive in the other direction?

You obviously can't complain of bias in one direction and applaud it in the opposite direction. Not and be taken as seriously objective anyway.

One last thing; you may still want to get that dictionary. I believe that when you wrote:
"again with the insults (although vailed this time)"
that you meant 'veiled', as vailed means to doff one's hat. Something furthest from your mind, I am certain.

yes, I probably would have been that detailed in my critique if it was biased the other way.

in fact, I have, on various other entries.

regarding the peer review thread, there is no need to search the site, it is linked to in the entries data box...

currently in
peer review

... with peer review being a link to the thread.

as to the spelling, I have stated in a lot of places that due to having untreated dysgraphia, my spelling is abysmal on a good day, but obviously it was good enough in context for you to understand what I meant.

xyroth,

Being relatively new to the site, your response to my rather tame and tepid posting seemed a bit strong. It was the first time I had ever seen your adopted name, so we have had no previous history. Perhaps that is why I responded as I did. I hope no feelings have been seriously bruised here.

I am sorry to hear of your dysgraphia, a condition with which I was previously unaware. You may be assuming too much, though, to expect even those who have been around awhile to remember other researchers' personal limitations. (I hope nobody is keeping a dossier on me!)

The original entry was obviously biased, and the tone was dismissive (phrasing that I wish that I had used), but factually pretty well on I thought. I was trying to keep in mind the guides admonitions about encouraging writers before pointing out potential errors.

Because of my recent arrival, I am still not sure about posting in PR as opposed to posting to a PR entry. I will learn the difference. Obviously, it was easier for you to have found my post than it was for my to find yours. This is a function of time and experience.

Have a little patience with the newbies, 'k'? I'd hate to see too many chased off that could be an asset to the Guide.

oops,

firstly, there are no bruised feelings. it just tends not to happen with me.

second, I am sorry if I came on a bit strong, but I was under the impresion that you had been around for a while, and thus knew the ropes.

There are various places where you would be exactly right about being supportive, with the writing workshop, alternative writing workshop and the collaberative writing workshop's springing to mind.

It does tend to be true about the early stages of peer review as well, especially if the writer is fairly new at peer review, but it has to get harder at some point, because peer review is for getting entries into the edited guide.

because the edited guide is presented as the bbc's face on this site, it maintains a higher standard than the rest of the site requires, so it is not unusual by the second or third revision to have someone take the entry apart and show the author in detail where it has gone wrong. it is not a regular occurance though.

typically when it comes to commenting on an entry which is in one of these forums, you post to the thread (which is always linked on the entry from the same place in the information box).

only once the entry has "Not for Review" in that place do people usually post to the entry. it has to do with keeping all of the information for improving the entry easy to find.

once it is not for review, especially if it has edited status, then the extra information is usually discusions brought about by the content or information which would be necessary when the entry is being updated.

moving from the threads onto forums off the page is a matter of personal choice, so make the change when you want to.

as to dysgraphia, it is a condition like dyslexia, it just occurs at a different place in the brain. while it is just as bad as dyslexia, it is a lot less well known, due to a history of poor diagnosis.

Absolutely no worries, xyroth.

I tend to be pretty thick-skinned, myself. That is probably why I try to be as sensitive as I can to others' bruisings. Perhaps even overcompensating at times.

You've made a good case for the procedure you expected me to follow. Barring information to the contrary, I have no problem accepting it as written. I have no problem with following a successful process.

As to the breakdown, I've received some certain criticisms on my own postings, and try to take them as constructive. No one has yet done me the honor of actually breaking down the probable best corrections as yet, but they have been more or less of a kind.

I'm referring to my six part series on "Wilderness Survival on Earth". I'm told it contains too much humour, but very few have made specific suggestions for improvement. It will probably go FM as a result, or worse. Still, I had fun writing it, and no one has said that they hate it. I'll understand if it never reaches Edited Entry status.

Thanks, also, for the introduction to dysgraphia. I had actually wondered if it weren't another term for dyslexia, and I'm glad you cleared that up.

If I may borrow from another fan-base: Live long and prosper.

to return the proper reply, peace and long life.

the specifics of dyslexia and dysgraphia is that there is a long and complicated pathway between deciding to say something, and it coming out aswhat you wanted to say.

in both disorders (and some others as well) what happens is that there is a fault in one section of the pathway, and what comes out is different from what you intended.

it just happens at a different point in dysgraphia from where it happens in dyslexia.

as to breaking down the probable best corrections, that isn't what happens. we tend to flag areas of strength and weakness, so you know which bits need more work.

it is then up to you to address the issues raised, and either try and fix the problems, or try and convince the others why your solution is better.

mostly it works out that way.

Process understood and appreciated, xyroth

On my particular series: I'm too much of a second-guesser type to be so certain that I'm right as to try and convince the world.

And, sometimes, it gets to the point where you agree that everyone has a right to an opinion that doesn't match your own.

well, the typical "convert the world" example would be spelling.

people with these disorders are spectacularly bad at spelling, but often spectacularly good at writting stuff which is both erudite and easy to understand.

so what we tend to end up doing is pointing out the long term nature of the problem, the unlikelyness of a rapid solution, and the advantages of the "if it's understandable, it's good enough" approach.

we do this not because we are certain that our approach is right, but to nobble the "if it's not spelt right, it's hard to read" pedants.