View Single Post
Old 08-29-2006, 01:29 PM   #18 (permalink)
balderdash111
Psycho
 
One point adding to the difficulty of the search is that the currently available search methods will only find intelligent life that happened to be broadcasting signals into space during the very small window we have been around (so far) to receive them (taking into account the time that must pass while the signals travel to us - so they could be long dead by the time we hear them)

That's not to say they don't exist, but it makes them less likely to be found by us (short of interstellar archaeology - how cool would that be??)

Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
You've illustrated my point exactly. Because we have no idea what life looks like, acts like, or requires elsewhere, it's absurd to try and create equations about extraterrestrial life. Imagine if I were to say, "Well, there is life on 1 out of 8 planets in our solar system, therefore every 1 out of 8 planets in the universe has life". That's how I see the Drake Equation. It's massively simplistic, assumes a great deal, and only has the tiny perspective of our little planet and solar system. It's like asking a 2 year old who just learned basic math (1+1=2) to explain advanced calculus.
Again, in fairness to the Drake equation - I don't think many would argue that it can accurately predict the number of planets with intelligent life. Rather it is a tool to show how even low probability events - given a broad enough sample size - will result in significant numbers of hits.

As to being simplistic and assuming a great deal, that is probably true. However, I would suggest you look at the variables in the equation. Again, not looking at it as a predictive tool, I am hard pressed to add variables they did not think of. If anything, I would be deleting variables (e.g., it is based on an assumption that life must arise on planets, which may not be true, if I know my Star Trek ).

Obviously, each individual variable itself has dozens of underlying variables. For example, in order to reach the variable for the number of planets capable of sustaining life you would technically need to come up with an equation solving for the number of planets that would have whatever you think it necessary to sustain life. They "skip to the end" by asking you to plug in the answer rather than try to actually work out how you get there.
__________________
A little silliness now and then is cherished by the wisest men. -- Willy Wonka

Last edited by balderdash111; 08-29-2006 at 02:06 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
balderdash111 is offline  
 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360