I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I am not talking about myself.
No, friends, I'm talking about an article by Nicola Davis in The Guardian entitled "Scientists say most likely number of contactable alien civilisations is 36" which you can read by clicking here.
(Memo to file: I prefer headlines with initial capital letters on important words.)
The article is interesting, but not enlightening. It will introduce you to the Drake equation and the Astrobiological Copernican Principle and include paragraphs like the following:
"Under the strictest set of assumptions – where, as on Earth, life forms between 4.5bn and 5.5bn years after star formation – there are likely between four and 211 civilisations in the Milky Way today capable of communicating with others, with 36 the most likely figure."
Somewhere between four and 211. That really narrows it down. 36 the "most likely".
Really?
And the paragraph after that one states that "our civilisation would need to survive at least another 6,120 years for two-way communication."
Who came up with that figure?
It's balderdash, True "pie in the sky". A wild guess couched in a scienific cloak. As I said at the beginning, it's fascinating, but useless.
We are supposed to bow and genuflect in front of such erudition and knowledge.
If a scientist says it, it must be true.
One must be careful, though. I'm sure many scoffed at the idea of sailing west to reach the east when everybody knew that the earth was flat.
You may disagree with me in the comments. I don't mind.
So far in the month of July I have produced a post every day. I may be turning into Yorkshire Pudding.
Talk about your alien civilisation.
(P.S. - Oops, I was wrong. This is the fourth day in July but my third post. I probably have no business speaking ill of scientists when I can't even count.)
It seems to me that the author made a theory and then set about to align the facts to prove his theory. So much for the Scientific Method.
ReplyDeleteEmma, I noticed that the phrase "under the strictest assumptions" really meant "what I'm familiar with already, the way things happened here on this planet" which may not (or probably not_ apply at all to other parts of the universe. And how do they KNOW FOR A FACT (answer: they don't) that life forms 4.5bn to 5.5bn years after star formation? It's all pretty much guesswork, although they are supposed to be educated guesses.
DeleteYou are a prolific writer with your increasing number of posts! (you can work on the math) I know the Drake equation was written in order to stimulate scientific dialogue more than anything else. The numbers that get them to 36 make no sense to me. I used to read a lot of Carl Sagan and he had many interesting things to say about theories similar to that one. However, in my opinion Carl Sagan was a lot easier to understand!
ReplyDeleteBonnie, I always enjoyed Carl Sagan when he appeared on television.
DeleteI'm a scientist and by my calculation I have chances of becoming a grandmother between 2 and 28 times. The most likely is 11. I used the makeitup principle
ReplyDeletekylie, that's hilarious!
DeleteMath is hard.
ReplyDeletePractical Parsimony (Linda), I agree completely.
Delete