Drake equation

[Stir]

In the most recent commentary, Randi wrote

"When I consider the almost-infinite – there it is again! – amount of time during which permutations and combinations of elements and compounds have been occurring, the huge range of gravitational, temperature, pressure, and radiation influences, and the corresponding possible number of viable experiments that have taken place, I cannot imagine that a large number of those experiments have not been successful. Now, though the largest percentage of them doubtless failed to survive their emergence, the number of those that did survive – on the ″vast… number of planets capable of supporting life in the universe″ that reader Wilson cites, surely are around, or were until ″recently″ – meaning within a few million years of today."

This is almost equivalent to a deist "reasoning" : 'given the astonishing complexity in the universe, I cannot imagine how it could exist without a creator'

'I cannot imagine" is not a good scientific argument. A better approach to combining large numbers (of stars and of years) with [possibly] very small probabilities (of planet formation, of occurence of life) would be to use Drake's equation, a wonderful conceptual tool ... which specifically addresses the questions JR raises.

[drkitten]

'I cannot imagine" is not a good scientific argument. A better approach to combining large numbers (of stars and of years) with [possibly] very small probabilities (of planet formation, of occurence of life) would be to use Drake's equation, a wonderful conceptual tool ... which specifically addresses the questions JR raises.

Quite the contrary, not only does it not address the questions, it specifically formalizes them without enlightening.

What's the probability of life arising on a planet that is "suitable for life"? Well, our current best estimate is that it's 100% -- based on sample size of one. Any competent statistician wouldn't give such an extrapolation the time of day.

So instead you "imagine" whatever number will give you the answer you already decided that you want.

[Stir]

Quite the contrary, not only does it not address the questions, it specifically formalizes them without enlightening.

What's the probability of life arising on a planet that is "suitable for life"? Well, our current best estimate is that it's 100% -- based on sample size of one. Any competent statistician wouldn't give such an extrapolation the time of day.

Admittedly, Drakes Eq doesn't answer the questions, but it does 1) break the problem into smaller more manageable chunks (and perhaps allow meaningful discussion of those chunks) and 2) identifies where our knowldege is most complete and, conversely, where we know the least. One of the areas where we know almost nothing is the probability of life arising on 'suitable' planets. We can, however, do better than extrapolate from our sample of one : we can break that question down further and analyze it based on what we know of chemical and physical processes and properties of 'suitable' planets'. And most importantly, the equation allows us to understand the numbers so that we get away from 'almost infinite' (a completely meaningless concept from a scientific perspective) and formalize the cognitively risky manipulation of large and small numbers.

[tsg]

This is almost equivalent to a deist "reasoning" : 'given the astonishing complexity in the universe, I cannot imagine how it could exist without a creator'

Almost, but not quite. Randi is not offering his inability to imagine a universe where we are the only life as proof that we are not the only life. The statement simply says that he believes that other intelligent life in the universe is likely, with the understanding that his belief is revisable as we learn more.

'I cannot imagine" is not a good scientific argument. A better approach to combining large numbers (of stars and of years) with [possibly] very small probabilities (of planet formation, of occurence of life) would be to use Drake's equation, a wonderful conceptual tool ... which specifically addresses the questions JR raises.

The problem with the Drake Equation is that the actual values of many of the variables are unknown beyond a wild guess. And attempts to quantify the equation have resulted in estimates from "not bloody likely" to "almost certain" depending on who chose the values. "I cannot imagine" is not a good scientific argument. But when scientific evidence is sparse at best, it's not a bad place to start forming an opinion providing you are willing to revise it when the evidence does come in. And that's the real difference between what Randi said and the Deist argument you quote above: the Deist isn't very likely to change his mind.

[Stir]

... with the understanding that his belief is revisable as we learn more. ... And that's the real difference between what Randi said and the Deist argument you quote above: the Deist isn't very likely to change his mind.

I agree that you're probably correct, but I don't think that willingness to revise belief based on new evidence is anywhere included or implied by JR's original statement, nor excluded by a deist's argument

[tsg]

I agree that you're probably correct, but I don't think that willingness to revise belief based on new evidence is anywhere included or implied by JR's original statement, nor excluded by a deist's argument

With the statement taken alone, I don't disagree. But Randi's past commentary has made it very clear that his belief is always revisable based on the evidence. I don't think it is necessary for Randi to explicitly state that in every commentary for it to be understood.

The deist's argument I generalized based on the idea that faith is arrived at without evidence (and therefore not subject to revision when new evidence is discovered) and that their inability to imagine life without a creator is usually the result of their belief rather than the belief being the result of their inability to imagine it. An unfair characterization? Possibly, but I don't think it's all that far off.

[T'ai Chi]

There's too much error in it. You can get anything from 1 to 10 trillion or whatever depending on priors.

Maybe some Bayes guru could clear it up.

[T'ai Chi]

Or maybe not.

[Gr8wight]

The Drake equation was never intended to provide an answer. It was simply a method of promoting discussion about its variables.

[geni]

The Drake equation makes a number of flawed assumptions (to start with it assumes the body on which life is appearing has to orbit a star).

[Aepervius]

The Drake equation makes a number of flawed assumptions (to start with it assumes the body on which life is appearing has to orbit a star).

It could be an object which orbit a body, this last one orbiting a star, is this what you mean ? I am not sure if this really change the drake equation that much, if you count moons, or bodies orbiting moon or even more complex constellation of body orbiting. After all, it would be quite difficult to obtain a stable environement & orbit beyond the first degree of orbiting (tide, temperature differential etc...).

Or do you mean something else altogether ?

[T'ai Chi]

The Drake equation was never intended to provide an answer. It was simply a method of promoting discussion about its variables.

Well I mean it has an = sign in it and all. If it was just about discussion about the variables, why put it in an equation in the first place?

[Diamond]

The Drake Equation is literally meaningless. We don't know most of the parameters, nor even if the equation is complete.

I agree with Michael Crichton on this point - its a religious belief in mathematical form.

[Aepervius]

The Drake Equation is literally meaningless. We don't know most of the parameters, nor even if the equation is complete.

I agree with Michael Crichton on this point - its a religious belief in mathematical form.

If it was a religious belief it would be set in stone, and every attempt to discuss it would be flagged as heresy. I am sure "some" people just do that, just like they do the same for string theory or evolution.

But from what I saw on drake equation and the tweaking of its parameter (from both side) it is as remotely far from religion as evolution is.

I would call it speculation rather than religion. Still I would not call it science either ;).

PS: Crichton has shown many time his irrelevance in scientific field. A good sf writer which forgot what "science" is and is not. See his diatribe on global warming, without any evidence, or even relevant expertise from his side.

[geni]

It could be an object which orbit a body, this last one orbiting a star, is this what you mean ? I am not sure if this really change the drake equation that much, if you count moons, or bodies orbiting moon or even more complex constellation of body orbiting. After all, it would be quite difficult to obtain a stable environement & orbit beyond the first degree of orbiting (tide, temperature differential etc...).

Or do you mean something else altogether ?


It is may well be posible for life to appear on a large enough ball of rick that doesn't orbit anything.

[Mercutio]

It is may well be posible for life to appear on a large enough ball of rick that doesn't orbit anything.

...or a ball of rock...

[NobbyNobbs]

It is may well be posible for life to appear on a large enough ball of rick that doesn't orbit anything.

Possible but unlikely, considering all the evidence we currently have. Remember, we have to speculate based on past experience. All our experience with "life" is confined to this one planet, which happens to orbit a star.

[Gr8wight]

The Drake equation was never intended to provide an answer. It was simply a method of promoting discussion about its variables.Well I mean it has an = sign in it and all. If it was just about discussion about the variables, why put it in an equation in the first place?


Dear Justin,

I spent about ten minutes trying to come up with an honest answer to your question, and every time I did, it just seemed so...obvious, that I figured I was being too simplistic. Then I remembered. You're a troll.

Problem solved.

[Foster Zygote]

...or a ball of rock...

No, I believe he meant a ball of "Rick".

[Aepervius]

As far as we can tell life need at least water in liquid form to exists and reproduce to more complex multicellular forms. How many non-orbiting body can show water in liquid forms ?

[T'ai Chi]

Dear Justin,

I spent about ten minutes trying to come up with an honest answer to your question, and every time I did, it just seemed so...obvious, that I figured I was being too simplistic. Then I remembered. You're a troll.

Problem solved.

"Gr8wight", that's nice, but let's look at some logic here: What do you think the equals sign in the equation means?

[Diamond]

If it was a religious belief it would be set in stone, and every attempt to discuss it would be flagged as heresy. I am sure "some" people just do that, just like they do the same for string theory or evolution.

But from what I saw on drake equation and the tweaking of its parameter (from both side) it is as remotely far from religion as evolution is.

I would call it speculation rather than religion. Still I would not call it science either ;).

No, its still religion and not science. If it were speculation then it would be falsifiable in some testable way.

SETI is run on the belief that the Drake Equation isn't meaningless. It has found exactly zip.

PS: Crichton has shown many time his irrelevance in scientific field. A good sf writer which forgot what "science" is and is not. See his diatribe on global warming, without any evidence, or even relevant expertise from his side.

Spoken like a true believer. Crichton's argument were so irrelevant that when he last debated on climate change against global warmers his side won hands down (and the audience was pro-global warming before the debate).

He hasn't forgotten what science is about - but some climate modellers clearly have.

[geni]

As far as we can tell life need at least water in liquid form to exists and reproduce to more complex multicellular forms. How many non-orbiting body can show water in liquid forms ?

No idea bit depending on how much of the interior heat reaches the exterior it is posible.

[Mercutio]

Spoken like a true believer. Crichton's argument were so irrelevant that when he last debated on climate change against global warmers his side won hands down (and the audience was pro-global warming before the debate).
Link?

I only ask because at the Skeptic society conference on global warming, where he was a keynote speaker, he was not terribly well received. Granted, that audience had just listened to 2 days of speakers that disagreed with him...

[Diamond]

Link?

I only ask because at the Skeptic society conference on global warming, where he was a keynote speaker, he was not terribly well received. Granted, that audience had just listened to 2 days of speakers that disagreed with him...

A couple of links:

Report from the Herald Sun (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_wonder_global_warming_prophets_hate_debate/)

The debate on YouTube (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=global-warming-debate+blackghost76) in 10 parts

The defeated Gavin Schmidt who lamely made out that the reason why his side lost was that Michael Crichton is really tall (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/adventures-on-the-east-side/)

Actually I heard that one of the key factors that swung it wasn't Crichton at all - it was the condescension of Schmidt towards the audience's intelligence that had a large effect. Its impossible to say for sure, of course.

Edited to add:
Can we please not derail this thread, which is about the Drake Equation. Can any further communications be done via PM if its not on the original subject. Thanks

[Stir]

"Gr8wight", that's nice, but let's look at some logic here: What do you think the equals sign in the equation means?

An equals sign may be correct and have meaning even though the equation cannot be 'calculated' (not calculable for various possible reasons: 1) impossibility of the calculation to be completed, due to mathematical reasons; 2) impracticality of the calculation due to present limits on calculation speed; 3) disagreement or uncertainty about the values involved [as is the case with the Drake Eq]). Simply because it cannot be calculated does not render an equation incorrect or meaningless.

And why can't it be both a tool to promote discussions (and possibly deeper understanding) and an equation. My view is that it is both, and serves an important third purpose as well (as I stated earlier): it allows manipulation and better understanding of the quantities involved, and the result of multiplying extremely large numbers by extremely small ones ... so we won't have to say 'given the huge number of whatever ... I can't imagine'.

Further, I think the equation as stated is valid (though the values to be used are unknown): if we knew all the correct probabilities, the DEq would in fact give us the expected number of advanced civilizations.

[JayT]

A better approach to combining large numbers (of stars and of years) with [possibly] very small probabilities (of planet formation, of occurence of life) would be to use Drake's equation, a wonderful conceptual tool ... which specifically addresses the questions JR raises.


Calling the Drake equation "a wonderful conceptual tool" seems to be exaggerating its scientific worth to the extreme.

Analytically speaking, the Drake equation is not strictly scientific and does not have any actual scientific merit or utility. We shouldn't get carried away.

However fascinating it may be, the equation should not be taken too seriously due to the massive uncertainties in the applied numerical factors. Not a single one of those factors are known to any degree of certainty that could lead to any justifiable conclusions based on it.

Science is still a very long way from reliably filling in most of those numbers. As such, the uncertainties so extremely outweigh the certainties that no scientific conclusions can be justified at this time and, most probably, for a very long time yet to come.

I think there are some extraordinary surprises yet in store for us as we search for alien life in the cosmic haystack.

Speculation in and of itself is not unscientific. It can lead to either scientific discovery or absurd beliefs depending on each individual's perception and approach to the problem.

:)

[RecoveringYuppy]

It is may well be posible for life to appear on a large enough ball of rick that doesn't orbit anything.
Some people may assume that the rocks are orbiting something, but the Drake equation doesn't care about it. It's just a ratio of rocks to stars.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Calling the Drake equation "a wonderful conceptual tool" seems to be exaggerating its scientific worth to the extreme.
There seems to be an implication in this thread that something can't be science until it's actually produced a definite and firm conclusion.

How could anything be investigated scientifically without starting with a conceptual tool?

[Gr8wight]

Justin said:

"Gr8wight", that's nice, but let's look at some logic here

I just about spit out my coffee when I read that sentence. Justin, you wouldn't recognise logic if it fell on you, frozen, out of the sky, shortly after the passing of a jumbo jet. What say we try to out troll each other. Shall we meet in the 'Flame War' thread?