I have a hard time understanding SETI as anything other than a pipe dream. Fundamentally, the Drake equation is not empirical and belies observations. It's an extremely interesting thought experiment, but does not supply enough hard data to justify expense and human effort that is beyond superlatives. Can you think of any scientists who did their best work seeking something they were certain they would find, as Drake is certain he will find extraterrestrial life? Did Rosalind Franklin think she would find a double helix? Was Einstein certain that the speed of light in a vacuum was constant?
Fifty years of staring into the abyss and finding nothing is an awesome act of faith. Good science it is not.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Fighting "wars on"
"Acknowledge that national security does have economic, social, educational, and environmental dimensions, but insist that this doesn't necessarily mean the problems in those areas are the responsibility of the military to correct. Stylishly designating efforts to solve national ills as "wars" doesn't convert them into something appropriate for the employment of military forces." (page 12)
It makes sense that a solider engaged in "warfighting" would oppose the militarization of the language surrounding the "wars on" poverty and drugs. Thought this piece is dated and framed by a giant caveat, I think the idea in the quote should make the short list of reasons why our social wars are immensely scary rhetorical vehicles.
It makes sense that a solider engaged in "warfighting" would oppose the militarization of the language surrounding the "wars on" poverty and drugs. Thought this piece is dated and framed by a giant caveat, I think the idea in the quote should make the short list of reasons why our social wars are immensely scary rhetorical vehicles.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Evolution as the only game in town - even for nonliving organisms
It seems to me that if prions, which are not living, are able to evolve, Dawkins' hypothesis that extraterrestrial life would also be Darwinian stands to reason.
Processes that we assume to be exclusive to our domain (human, sentient, and even living) frequently reveal themselves to be intrinsic to nature, like a physical law. Seeing life as matter that is subject to deterministic principles seems inevitable, since we can no longer support the notion that we (defined as broadly as possible) are capable of anything that other natural systems can't do.
Processes that we assume to be exclusive to our domain (human, sentient, and even living) frequently reveal themselves to be intrinsic to nature, like a physical law. Seeing life as matter that is subject to deterministic principles seems inevitable, since we can no longer support the notion that we (defined as broadly as possible) are capable of anything that other natural systems can't do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)