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

"I realize this is going to honk some people off, but it has to be said in the interests of balance."

I'm not totally clear on what you're trying to balance. I'm probably going to sound honked off but:

I got a bit of a feeling you're trying to balance a hypothetical "religion"(your "entymilogicy" is actually very debatable*) of SETI, which you seem to suggest was started by Carl Sagan. But Carl Sagan was always very vocally in his opinion of faith based religiosity; he stated quite clearly a number of times that a religiosity based on science was possible and that it would be a religiosity based on testable knowledge rather than faith (I recommend a look at his "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark". I remember his lament about fans who would ask him whether he believed there were intelligence out there. He would always answer "I don't know if there's intelligence out there" and they would never be satisfied. "I don't know" doesn't seem to be much of a foundation for a religion of faith, but it is the foundation of science. It was the sense of wonder at the immensity of what we don't know that Sagan suggested would one day be the foundation of a totally new religiosity.
Again, I'm not clear what the balance is supposed to be. Some people are proceeding with the good old scientific method (A918461) to test a hypothesis through experimentation and observation. What would be a balance, testing the hypothesis by channelling spirits or looking at sheep livers? If somebody writes an entry on the oblate spheroid shape of the earth, does it have to be balanced by a flat-earth entry? You raise up a number of "straw men" who support SETI and present their purported beliefs without attribution. Are you talking about people actually working on really SETI programs or are you talking about the Raelians? I think you definitely need to be specific and to provide some links so that you don't tar everyone with the same brush. I run SETI@home, but, like Carl Sagan, I don't know if there's anything out there, and I don't believe one way or another about it. But science is about finding out, and finding out has often proved in the past to be a useful thing.

Of course, maybe I've misunderstood what you meant by balance. If so, ignore all of the forgoing and just consider the etymology note below.

* "religion - 12c., from O.Fr. religion "religious community,"
from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is
sacred," in L.L. "monastic life" (5c.), possibly from relegare
"go through again, read again," from re- "again" + legere
"read." Popular etymology connects it with religare "to bind
fast" (see rely), via notion of "place an obligation on," or
"bond between humans and gods." Another possible origin
is religiens "careful," opposite of negligens. Modern sense
of "recognition of, obedience to, and worship of a higher,
unseen power" is from 1535. "

from the Online Etymology Dictionary
http://www.etymonline.com/r3etym.htm

writing a paper right now, I'll come back and address everything brought up in the last couple of weeks or so when i can. for now:

"Religion"

from the latin

re ligio

ligature

ligament

reconnection, rebinding, putting back together what has been taken apart. The word is commonly used to describe organised systems of theistic worship, thought, and activity. I contend the word has a much broader and richer meaning which can be widely applied to a number of fields of human endeavour.

As I said, though, I already agreed to the omission of this bit; I'll chalk up your objections to another vote for the 'yes, please do so' camp.

I consider Carl Sagan to be a fine example of leftover 19th century sophistry masquerading as scientific orthodoxy. Compared to thinkers like 1957 Nobel prize winner David Bohm, I call Sagan's scientific methodology into question.

Thanks for your input all. I'll be back in a week to address some of this stuff.

"This just goes to demonstrate that even relatively smart people can do abominably stupid things if they want badly enough to believe in something"

You've completely missed the point as to why we are crunching seti units.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm doing it because I want to be the first to find the signal from another civilization.

I can't climb mountains, or walk to the Pole.

Seti@home I can do, from the comfort of my own living room. It gives me a sense of belonging - to the Human Race if you like - in my lonely insignificant little life.

It's worthwhile, for a sense of balance, to link to my already edited Guide entry on SETI@home, A649893 as Jimster says. You will also find a link to Carl Sagan there which you may use.

I recall Jimmy Carter saying he _saw_ a not that he was once abducted by one.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/ufo990122.html

Oh and Jupiter requires a capital "J".

>> I can't climb mountains, or walk to the Pole. <<

Niether can I, but I can perhaps help find a cure for cancer or smallpox.

Oxford University are running a project using distributed processing similare to seti@home that is seeking to find a cure for cancer and smallpox. I used to subscribe to seti@home but I think this is probably a more worthwhile use of my spare capacity.

http://www.grid.org/projects/cancer/

Stuart

I did actually try the cancer one but it didn't agree with my ancient pc, so I had to uninstal it.

I think this article needs serious work. edited guide entries are supposed to be balanced, but most of the article seems to be seti-bashing.

most of the rest is about ufologists.

it barely mentions all of the good work done by seti@home and seti in general to help progress distributed computing.

it also seems to take an unrealistically pesimistic view of the likelyhood of inhabitable planets based on current detection methods (which are improving every day).

*agrees*

Under the Help\About Seti@home menu, the project sponsors are listed as:

the Planetary Society
the University of California
Sun Microsystems
Paramount Pictures
Fujifilm Computer Products
IBM devloperWorks
Quantum
Informix
The Santa Cruz Operation
Intel
Space.com
Engineering Design Team Inc
the SETI Institute
Peer Logic
Crystal Group Inc
O'Reilly & Associates
MimEcom
Polycom
DLH Industries Inc
and
Apple Computer.

As the aims and methods of the project are (seemingly) deemed worthy by more than a few world renowned organisations, maybe this entry might be a little less dismissive...

woah

*agrees*

*coughs*

http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/Candidates/user_list/userlist1.html

Due to a computer failure, I am currently unable to respond in detail, nor am I able to work on the entry at the moment. I will come back to it soon, I hope. In the meantime, I have noticed that the most vociferous critics of this piece have to date not produced many specific counterarguments to any of the (I feel) reasonably valid points raised in the piece, resorting instead to the old 'so and so disagrees with you so you must be wrong' argument, which is a laughable logical fallicy. After all, IBM did business with Hitler and sends campaign $$ to George Bush, so don't feel too safe endorsing the things they endorse just because they endorse it. What strikes me as amusing is that this is the same sort of reaction I get from offended theists when I write about religious issues. "Heresy! Cynicism! Sinner! So-and-so believes/believed in God, so should you!" I'm not dissuaded. But if you really want to think critically about such an issue (no, I realise that you don't, you want to be RIGHT and you want dissent SILENCED, but bear with me anyways) I suggest reading Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by University of Chicago Press, which provides an overview of the history of scientific thought, and in doing so, provides the reader with a spectacular list of very smart, prominent, and accomplished scholars who at various times attached themselves to outlandishly stupid and backward notions in flagrant violation of the data provided by their own experiments. I challenge you to read this book, come back to this thread, and offer me the same arguments in a spirit of intellectual honesty.

I agree that this piece does not strike a balance in that it doesn't cover a lot of things mentioned in the official edited H2G2 entry, but I saw no reason to cover the same ground twice... this is offered as a critical overview, perhaps meriting inclusion as an addendum to the official entry. Mind you, my piece was written about 3 years ago and I think it predates the official Guide entry... it's being submitted now because it got lost in cyberlimbo the first time around. As for my supposed irreverance, where would we be right now if Douglas Adams had been at all reverant in his social critiques? Call it humour or sarcasm, but don't be so quick to take offense; being easily offended is the hallmark of small-minded, fideist fanaticism. To me, your blustering dismissal seems a thin facade to draw attention away from your lack of solid counterarguments.

Discuss.

I'm confused.

hypotheses: intelligent beings capable of transmitting on radio frequencies exist in the Galaxy.

experiment: aim radio telescope at stars and listen.

if signal detected, hypotheses has been found to accurately model the one corner of the galaxy.

if no signal detected, experiment continues.

Where's the religion? I just don't get what the issue is with this experimental program.

I've read Kuhn. He's just as fallible as anyone else. I don't really understand the quasi-religious devotion to his work either.

I said it before and now I'll say it again in different terms. I don't have any spiritual investment in SETI. It doesn't make any difference to me, just as the details of the nature of black holes makes no difference to me. But, finding out about things is what we do. I'm not sure what your issue is with SETI.

I don't think this is suitable for the edited guide. It not just that it's unbalanced - it's the way it dismisses other peoples views so rudely.

All discussions about SETI are full on uncertainties. We know that intelligent life has evolved on one planet. But we only guess the chances of it happening elsewhere. You can argue about the size of the Universe and the unliklihood of evolution, but all arguments are based on assumptions. We simply don't know enough about life, the Universe, and everything to draw conclusions.

SETI is pursuing a valid scientific goal. It's also providing a lot of fun for a lot of people.

If you want this to 'balance' the seti@home article, then make this clear in the article (add a link to start with). But I also think you need the chance the style a lot too.

Hi Twophlag,

Although your post above wasn't addressed to anyone in particular, I assume that it was inspired (at least in part) by my most recent post (the one with the sponsors names)

I feel that your use of this thread to tell (presumably) me what I want <<...you want to be RIGHT and you want dissent SILENCED...>> ranks alongside the opening paragraph of A292024 in terms of relevance and validity

<<...the most vociferous critics of this piece have to date not produced many specific counterarguments to any of the (I feel) reasonably valid points raised in the piece...>>

Well, I don't regard myself as an overly vociferous critic - and even if I am, my comments seem to be falling on deaf ears. Three weeks ago, in post #13, I _counter-argued_ that your use of the term sentient was inaccurate yet you have neither responded to this nor amended your article

It seems that although you are <<...unable to respond in detail...>>, you're evidently able to respond in generalisations

I'll wait until you argue your points a little more convincingly before considering that Kuhn's book, with its <<...spectacular list of very smart, prominent, and accomplished scholars...>> is worth reading. Otherwise I might well be accused of perpetuating a <<...laughable logical fallacy...>>

I feel that likening your <<...irreverence...>> with that of Douglas Adams (incidentally, a contributor to A649893) is, at best, rather conceited and not (as it stands) <<...meriting inclusion as an addendum to the official entry...>>

<<...Call it humour or sarcasm...>>

Given the choice, I'll label your writing sarcastic cos it sure ain't humorous - although following your assertion that <<...being easily offended is the hallmark of small-minded, fideist fanaticism...>> with the phrase <<...blustering dismissal...>> is definitely laughable

Please note that I simply suggested that <<...this entry might be a little less dismissive...>> I wasn't dismissing your article - and I'm still not, although I agree with Mammuthus Primigenius (hello) and I think it needs a major over-haul before it can be considered for inclusion in the Edited Guide

six7s
:: still wondering if there is intelligent life out there ::

Twophlag:

I am still concerned with your suspect pop-etymology of the word "religion". Your brief, point form response a while back was not really adequate.

Also, I'm surprised that you haven't used Karl Popper's theories as artillery against SETI. After all, if there ever were an hypothesis with less potential for falsification than the one underlying SETI I've never heard it (except, of course, the hypothesis underlying the theories of Karl Popper.)

But, in any case, and, again, your thumbnail pop-etymology really does not have a place in the Edited Guide (especially not in an entry with any pretensions of balance).

As for your erection of Bohm as a contrast to the sophistry of the 19th century, I hardly think that a new sophistry (or perhaps a recycled sophistry) has much more to recommend it. Bohm is a darling of parts of the New Age movement who find support for their uncritical neo-spirituality in their ill-understood readings of Bohm's works. (cf. http://www.heaven-words.com/888.htm) I'm sorry, but you're sounding more and more like the people who seem to think that the Uncertainty Principal means that there is no objective reality, so any delusion is just as valid as any mathematical proof. Using Bohm as your example of rationality over Sagan is a questionable strategy at best.

But, whatever. My area of expertise is the etymology. The fun you have with the word "religion" needs to be excised or changed.

Best wishes,

anhaga

My computer is still down so I have to settle for sneaking in a quick note from this library monitor;

To sum up: Changes to article are not feasible right now because I have no computer access to internet, please be patient. For those with poor reading skills, I have already agreed several times now to amend the part of the piece, all two sentences of it, that compares SETI advocates to giant invisible monkey worshippers.

I also await specific counterarguments that focus critically on logical errors or fallacious assumptions in the piece; I will agree to consider further my use of the term 'sentience' in this light. Does anyone else care to point out something specifically wrong with this piece aside from the fact that it questions popular assumptions and thereby offends people's belief systems?

Critics of Mr. Bohm and Mr. Kuhn are free to criticise their specific writings or ideas, but dismissing me or my ideas based on your assumption of what my opinion of Bohm's and Kuhn's opinions are constitutes a logical fallicy. I simply stated something to the effect that I find Sagan to be a narrow-minded pinhead, and proffered a preferred alternative. It's not an opinion that I have to back up and it's not an opinion that I need to clarify; it's just an opinion, and it doesn't make an appearance anywhere in the piece in question. I again challenge my esteemed critics to take a pause, stop screaming 'blasphemy', adjust the framed PH.D. papers hanging on their office walls, and write a reasoned counterargument to this piece, listing why you disagree with the various points that it makes.

I will listen and make amends accordingly when I can.

and the etymology?

Hi Twophlag

I will try to clarify the points I made:

Firstly, it's not so much what you are saying, but the way you say it. This piece is about your opinion. You need to acknowledge that many people disagree with you and that they are not all nutters.

You are claiming that the chance of SETI discovering a positive signal is negligible. This is your belief, not an established fact, there are far too many uncertainties in the Drake equation to draw any conclusions. SETI is a scientific experiment designed to find out more about life in the universe, if they don't find anything, that is a valid scientific result. If they do, it's the greatest scientific discovery of all time.

You view SETI as a religion, again this is your opinion. People support SETI for the same reason they support other areas of science and the art, because it's cool, it's a worthwhile way to spend time and money. Not everyone likes SETI, just as not everyone likes the Royal Ballet. But plenty do, so it is worthwhile venture.

MP

Some decent points, I'll attempt a rewrite of this piece to try and include as many of them as I can... hopefully computer will be up and running by this weekend.

Although I intend to remove the widely disparaged 'religion' comparison (and associated entymology :P) I did want to share a story with you folks, to consider at your leisure.

Two groups of monkeys are huddled by their respective campfires under the stars one evening.

One group of monkeys are atheletic, aggresssive, and though they possess a cunning of sorts, they not very smart; typical simian alpha-male candidates. They spend most of their time thinking of ways to get waht they want from female monkeys and making plans to smash each other with sticks in order to ensure their own dominance in the tribe. They look up at the heavens and try to imagine what's out there, and they come up with the notion that there must be a really big invisible alpha male monkey with a huge stick living up there.

The other group of monkeys are nerdy, intellectual monkeys who like to spend their time fiddling around building radio telescopes. These monkeys don't care for the other camp of monkeys very much, and find the idea of a giant invisible space monkey laughable. Any idiot, they argue, can plainly see that the heavens are full of other superintelligent pacifist monkeys with HUGE radio telescopes.