The hypocrisy of SETI

>We require that a signal of very similar characteristics be seen at the same spot in the sky multiple times before considering it to be real.
astronomy.com/news/2016/08/the-promising-seti-signal-probably-isnt-aliens

>The Arecibo message is a 1974 interstellar radio message carrying basic information about humanity and Earth sent to globular star cluster M13 in the hope that extraterrestrial intelligence might receive and decipher it.
>The total broadcast was less than three minutes.

How the fuck does SETI expect to find alien signals when according to their standards even our own attempts at interstellar communication wouldn't qualify as positive detections because they weren't repeated for long periods?

SETI

threadly reminder that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

No, but the Fermi Paradox is a pretty good argument that we are alone.

(Hit the post button too soon.)

SETI is such a horrible waste of money. Why would a civilization spend time and energy transmitting for months towards a random patch of space not knowing if they'll get a reply? We're better off looking at changes in stellar light curves than hoping to catch transient radio waves at just the right time with just the right equipment.

>the Fermi Paradox is a pretty good argument
No it's not.

>build colony on moon
>build a big scope next to it
>look for habitable planets

I think that will actually work unlike seti.

no it's not. It's a complete ass pull.

A meaningful information signal need not be intentionally sent.

Fermi Paradox only asks why given abundance of life we can't see anything, it's not an argument we're alone.

Maybe, but requiring it to persist for months for it to be considered real is much too strict of a criterium that is tailored for the detection of natural phenomena, not accidental leakage from an artificial source.

Yeah cuz theyll see earth

Space if fucking huge and attenuation is a massive bitch. You can't get a signal to reach anything or anyone unless you are harnessing the power of a fucking star.

>I don't understand the Fermi paradox
Either mad brainlets or hardcore in denial.

>>I don't understand the Fermi paradox
>Either mad brainlets or hardcore in denial.
Speak for yourself.

You know nothing about communications systems. You want to communicate with someone on another planet in another system? Figure out how to make your star blink on the side that planet will be when it crosses the energy path.

inverse square law mean seti is pointless.

it would be better to do a multi frequency comparative analysis of the stars. compare infrared, visible, and microwave. see if there are objects that appear in one or two, but not in the other/s.

a dysonsphere would glow in infrared but not be in visible light.

a small bright object in microwave/radar bands, orbiting a star and and not detectable in visible, would be a planet with advanced civilization.

>Still doesn't get it
The Fermi Paradox isn't about communication, the argument is that all living things reproduce exponentially and therefore if intelligent life besides us exist anywhere in the galaxy they should have colonized all of it or at least a huge percentage of it by now. Even if we couldn't hear what they were saying it would be obvious that they were there because they would be everywhere and common.

You're comment literally reads as if it should be it's own reply, very nice.

Fermi paradox is a load of horseshit with no logical reasoning behind it.

That arguement makes a huge number of assumption about the likelyhood of life developing, the rate at which it expands, the ability for a species to spread though star systems, the drive for a species to spread through star systems, and that human life would have to have evolved well after one one of these species. There are more assumptions it makes as well but the Fermi "paradox" is by no means a paradox.

>Natural selection and population growth aren't logical
>That arguement makes a huge number of assumption about the likelyhood of life developing
No it doesn't. It doesn't make any assumptions other than that basic natural selection occurs with other living species. You brainlets really don't get it. Is it because it is bio related and Veeky Forums is shit at bio?

No it's just that you're too retard to understand that the Fermi paradox doesn't make any sense and apparently nothing I will tell can change your mind. Research it yourself.

>that the Fermi paradox doesn't make any sense
at least argue your bloody point, preferably referencing the other user's post

The absence of evidence for X is evidence of absence of X, unless the existence of X causes evidence to be absent.

No, I'm not wasting my time making a point in a way that this retard will agree with, it's a waste of my fucking time.

>The absence of evidence for X is evidence of absence of X
Wrong.

fair enough,
it does make you look like a colossal knob, though

>colonized
>ships flying all over
>obvious evidence seen from Earth

Are you 12? Real life fucking crushes all that shit completely. We live in the middle of fucking no where. BFE in space. Sure, 0.0001% of planets or whatever containing actual civilizations is a shit ton of planets, but that doesn't mean any of them are even remotely near us at all.

>unless the existence of X causes evidence to be absent.

>ITS WRONG ITS WRONG LALALALALLALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
Why not make an actual argument.

>It's not my job to educate you
So you can't actually argue but will say that you are totally right but can't explain why.

>i'm a brainlet
You still don't get it or even know what the fermi paradox is. The argument is that population growth means that .000001% of planets wouldn't have life, it's that if even one did have intelligent life then it should have colonized the rest of the galaxy.

You notice how this is literally only used when idiots believe in something with no evidence?

I love how anytime someone brings up the Fermi paradox, it triggers a bunch of SciFi brainlets who can't accept that Starwars won't ever happen.

Define E as evidence for X such that

Pr(X|E) > Pr(X)

Pr(~X|E) < Pr(~X)

Pr(~X) Pr(E|~X) / Pr(E) < Pr(~X)

Pr(E|~X) < Pr(E)

Pr(~E|~X) > Pr(~E)

Pr(~E) Pr(~X|~E) / Pr(~X) > Pr(~E)

Pr(~X|~E) > Pr(~X)

Which by the definition of evidence we started with means that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>You still don't get it or even know what the fermi paradox is.

It is a crock of fucking shit. That is what it is. Perhaps you need to take your fucking gay reddit ass back to your shithole where it can get shitpacked in your hugbox.

>Which by the definition of evidence we started with means that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Wrong, learn some basis probabilities before doing manipulations you don't understand.

By your definition ~E is evidence, thus can not be absence of evidence.

>You notice how this is literally only used when idiots believe in something with no evidence?
Not an argument, there's no claim of any belief in that post at all.

>I love how anytime someone brings up the Fermi paradox, it triggers a bunch of SciFi brainlets who can't accept that Starwars won't ever happen.
I love how anytime someone points out how the Fermi paradox is garbage, it triggers a bunch of fresman brainlets who can't accept that they don't understand science nor mathematics.

>By your definition ~E is evidence, thus can not be absence of evidence.
E is evidence *of X*, not evidence of anything. So of course the absence of evidence can be evidence for something else, not X. This isn't even a probabilistic criticism, you just misunderstood what the variables are. The proof is sound.

>So of course the absence of evidence can be evidence for something else, not X.
Wrong, absence of evidence is not evidence by definition.

There is no evidence of smoke. This is evidence my house is not on fire.

Your playing semantics here. "Evidence" here refers specifically to evidence of X not "any evidence." "Absence of evidence" refers specifically to absence of evidence of X.

And I defined E as evidence with respect to X, i.e. E is whatever increases the chance of X being true. So your argument completely fails.

>absence of evidence of aliens cannot be evidence for the absence of aliens by definition
wat

It is by law in the USA. If you crush a usb drive when SWAT breaks down your door, you get slapped with "destruction of evidence" even if there's literally nothing on the drive.

>US law now trumps actual logic
I learned something today.

>Your playing semantics here.
It's 'you're'.

>"Evidence" here refers specifically to evidence of X not "any evidence." "Absence of evidence" refers specifically to absence of evidence of X.
Irrelevant, your incorrect claim remains irredeemably false. P(~X|~E) by definition involves evidence, hence can not be an absence of evidence.

The American legal code has nothing to do with evidence of scientific theories.

Yes, it completely wrecks your argument. You should stop posting now.

>If you crush a usb drive when SWAT breaks down your door, you get slapped with "destruction of evidence" even if there's literally nothing on the drive.
Only because eyewitness testimony of SWAT members is used as evidence. Therefore still not an argument, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

>Yes, it completely wrecks your argument. You should stop posting now.
Don't worry, once you get past your freshman year and actually take a class on probability and finally learn what the scientific method is you might finally get it.

It's illegal to drink alcohol in the US if you're under 21 years of age.
Therefore people under 21 can not drink alcohol.
QED.

>P(~X|~E) by definition involves evidence, hence can not be an absence of evidence.
The fact that you keep removing the context shows you are being dishonest. Absence of evidence of X is evidence of absence of X. Since X and absence of X are not the sane thing, no contradiction exists. You are wrong and you know it.

Why so triggered, kid?

You don't seem to understand how a logical proof works. Either show that the premise is false or show the conclusion does not follow from the premise. You have done neither.

>The fact that you keep removing the context shows you are being dishonest.
Defining evidence to be both evidence and not absence is the only act of dishonesty here.

>Absence of evidence of X is evidence of absence of X.
Yes, this your claim, but simply repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.

>Why so triggered, kid?
Freshmen/freshwomen pretending to understand probability and the scientific method when they in fact don't does not 'trigger' me, I just wish they wouldn't.

>Either show that the premise is false or show the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
I already showed the conclusion does not follow from the premise because of a contradiction due to the faulty abuse of the definition of evidence.

Next?

...

I'm not a "he".

>Defining evidence to be both evidence and not absence is the only act of dishonesty here.
Where did I define evidence to be "not absence"? I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I defined evidence for something as that which increases the probability of something. This means that evidence of one thing can be evidence against something else.

>Yes, this your claim, but simply repeating it over and over doesn't make it true.
Ah so you agree that is my claim. Good, so now we know you were deliberately misrepresenting it. And I find it funny that you claim I am simply repeating this claim when I gave a clear proof of it. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough?

At which step doors the conclusion not follow from the premise before it in the proof here . Tell me the line.

>At which step doors the conclusion not follow from the premise before it in the proof here . Tell me the line.
Here:
>Which by the definition of evidence we started with means that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>Where did I define evidence to be "not absence"?
When you used evidence as both evidence and absence of evidence.

Don't worry, you'll get it eventually.

>And I find it funny that you claim I am simply repeating this claim when I gave a clear proof of it.
Once again, making claims doesn't simply making something true. Your "proof" was not "clear", let alone even a proof.

Underrated

How does it not follow? You realize that I did not define E and X right? I just defined the relation between them called "evidence."

>When you used evidence as both evidence and absence of evidence.
Evidence for one thing does not have to be evidence for another. Why are you removing context?

>Once again, making claims doesn't simply making something true. Your "proof" was not "clear", let alone even a proof.
You have yet to show how it is not a proof, just repeating the same semantic falsehood over and over.

for all we know, life could be extremely common in the galaxy/universe. it's just that space is so fucking [math]\text{B I G}[/math] and we've seen/listened to so little of it that how could we know??

1. If Pr(X|E) > Pr(X) then E is evidence for X

Pr(~X|E) < Pr(~X)

Pr(E|~X) < Pr(E)

Pr(~E|~X) > Pr(~E)

Pr(~X|~E) > Pr(~X)

Therefore ~E is evidence for ~X

QED

Now there is no place for your sophistry.

>Points out
Except no one did. They just got butthurt and couldn't make an argument against it.

>Still no argument
Man, /x/ really is pissed about their Ayylmoa waifu not being real.

>How does it not follow? You realize that I did not define E and X right? I just defined the relation between them called "evidence."
Because the conclusion talks about an absence of evidence, while the line before refers to evidence. Unless you continue to make the irredeemable contradiction of calling something both evidence and an absence of evidence, the line does not follow.

>Evidence for one thing does not have to be evidence for another.
What's the relevance?

>Why are you removing context?
I've removed no context.

>You have yet to show how it is not a proof, just repeating the same semantic falsehood over and over.
The conclusion does not follow, hence is not a proof, or even a "proof".

Next?

>1. If Pr(X|E) > Pr(X) then E is evidence for X
>Pr(~X|E) < Pr(~X)
>Pr(E|~X) < Pr(E)
>Pr(~E|~X) > Pr(~E)
>Pr(~X|~E) > Pr(~X)
>Therefore ~E is evidence for ~X
>QED
>Now there is no place for your sophistry.

Only proves that ~E is evidence for ~X. Says nothing about an absence of evidence.

Next?

>Except no one did. They just got butthurt and couldn't make an argument against it.
There's nothing supporting the Fermi paradox, what is there to make an argument against?

It's simply nonsense.

Make a case for it and I will gladly refute it.

>Because the conclusion talks about an absence of evidence, while the line before refers to evidence.
I am asking how this is contradictory. You have not explained this, just removed context to mislead. Every time you do this, you lose the argument.

>What's the relevance?
Evidence for one thing can be absence of evidence for another. When you remove context, this becomes evidence can be absence of evidence.

>I've removed no context.
Then why do you fail time and time again to what E is evidence of? Stop lying.

>Only proves that ~E is evidence for ~X.
So you admit the proof is sound! You lose.

>Says nothing about an absence of evidence.
E is whatever specific evidence you want. Let E be alien communications. If alien communications is evidence of aliens existing, then the absence of alien communications is evidence of the absence of aliens. The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>I am asking how this is contradictory.
Because the line before refers to evidence. You have given no reasoning linking it to an absence of evidence. You have not explained this, just repeated the claim to mislead. Every time you do this, you lose the argument.

>Evidence for one thing can be absence of evidence for another.
[citation needed]

>Then why do you fail time and time again to what E is evidence of? Stop lying.
Rewrite this into something that makes sense.

Next?

>There is nothing supporting the Fermi Paradox
Except basic knowledge of biology. If another intelligent species exists than it will spread itself and expand just like all other living things do.

but space is so fucking BIG. why should that necessarily mean that we have contact with them?

>Because the line before refers to evidence.
Evidence of what?

>You have given no reasoning linking it to an absence of evidence.
The proof clearly links them. Stop lying.

>Evidence for one thing can be absence of evidence for another.
>[citation needed]
My knowledge of Scott is that he is unmarried. My knowledge of Scott is evidence that he is a bachelor. My knowledge is an absence of evidence that he is awake right now. According to you this is impossible.

>Freshmen/freshwomen pretending to understand probability and the scientific method when they in fact don't does not 'trigger' me, I just wish they wouldn't.
>scientific method
>US law

Please go on.

>It's big
So? On the scale of millions or billions of years space travel doesn't actually take that long even if we don't consider shit like light speed travel.

how does that imply that we should have evidence of them?

>So you admit the proof is sound! You lose.
That proof is only sound in that it proves that if E is evidence of X then ~E is evidence of ~X. If you wanted to prove that absence of evidence is evidence of absence using your faulty definition, you would need to prove that P(~X)>P(~X) (the left hand side being the case of an absence of evidence), an impossibility.

It (obviously) doesn't prove that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence (since it can't) (which is the only relevant claim), since the argument only deals with an irrelevant case where evidence is in fact present. You lose.

>The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
Wrong. Once again, repeating a claim does not make it true.

Next?

If the galaxy was colonized then they would be very common since they would have colonized the entire galaxy

>Please go on.
Go on about what? You just quoted random parts of myposts.

>entire argument is built on would be's and should be's
Hmm, smells like bullshit

they could be extremely common and we still could have no evidence of them

we haven't even remotely explored a single other planet in our own solar system. there could be intelligent life in the next solar system over and we could not know. so again I ask, why does this necessitate we should have evidence of them?

>Evidence of what?
It doesn't matter, evidence can not be used as absence of evidence, by definition.

>The proof clearly links them. Stop lying.
Repeating a claim does not make it true.

>My knowledge of Scott is that he is unmarried. My knowledge of Scott is evidence that he is a bachelor. My knowledge is an absence of evidence that he is awake right now. According to you this is impossible.
This is simply nonsense, try rewriting it into something sensical. Something is either evidence or it's not.

>That proof is only sound in that it proves that if E is evidence of X then ~E is evidence of ~X.
So you admit that if something is evidence of X, then the absence of evidence of X is evidence of absence of X! Thank you for finally admitting you were wrong, I'm glad that I convinced you the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

>So you admit that if something is evidence of X, then the absence of evidence of X is evidence of absence of X!
Are you claiming that ~E is evidence or not? You need to pick one. Either way your argument does not hold.

How understanding of US law predicates understanding of the scientific method

>How understanding of US law predicates understanding of the scientific method
Who said it did?

That is what an argument is user. You are reaching pretty far user.
Nope. If they colonized the entire galaxy we would see them in our own solar system or see them taking energy and blackening stars. There would be no ifs about it, they would be everywhere.
>inb4 b-but they just all don't go to earth!

>we would see them in our own solar system
[citation needed]

>or see them taking energy and blackening stars
[citation needed]

>they would be everywhere.
[citation needed]

This is why Fermiists are bullshit, no arguments whatsoever, just wishful thinking.

>If they colonized the entire galaxy we would see them in our own solar system
what? just to be clear, the operating assumption here is
>if intelligent life exists, it would have colonized every single inhabitable world
right?

in which case I disagree with your assumption

>Citation
The fact that living things take in energy and reproduce. How are you this dumb.
>I am going to argue that living things reproduce
Ok user.

Eh maybe you're not the same person who made the initial argument about SWATs and Zip Disquettes. The initial argument revolved around US context and US insults so it was very narrow minded regardless of the intended outcome.

>>I am going to argue that living things reproduce
Who are you quoting?

>Eh maybe you're not the same person who made the initial argument about SWATs and Zip Disquettes.
I'm not and I don't know why you think I am.

>I am going to argue that living things reproduce
this is a strawman.

your assumption was
>if intelligent life exists, it would have colonized every single inhabitable world
and I disagree

>If you wanted to prove that absence of evidence is evidence of absence using your faulty definition, you would need to prove that P(~X)>P(~X) (the left hand side being the case of an absence of evidence)
Sorry, that doesn't have anything to do with how I defined evidence. Again,

Evidence is defined such that if Pr(X|E) > Pr(X) then E is evidence for X

In order for P(~X)>P(~X) to be an equivalent statement, we would have to have

Pr(~X|E) = Pr(~X)

Pr(~X|E) = Pr(~X)

Pr(X|E) = Pr(X)

Which contradicts the premise that Pr(X|E) > Pr(X). So your feeble attempt to mischaracterize my proof fails miserably, as it is actually antithetical to my definition of evidence.

>It (obviously) doesn't prove that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence
You just admitted that it does.

>since the argument only deals with an irrelevant case where evidence is in fact present.
Nowhere do I define E as "present." This is nothing but semantics. Again, you need to actually find a fault in my proof, which you've already admitted is sound. I even gave you a concrete example in plain language, and you ignored it, since you know you lost.