Re: Drake's equation

On 5/9/24 8:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:

On Thu, 9 May 2024 08:46:11 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com>:
 

On 2024-05-08 22:52:44 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
>

On Wed, 8 May 2024 14:59:33 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:
>

On 5/8/24 1:53 PM, vallor wrote:

On Wed, 8 May 2024 15:22:27 -0400, JTEM <jtem01@gmail.com> wrote in
<v1gjdj$4nbk$3@dont-email.me>:
>

jillery wrote:
>
[...]

>
And so we have arrived at the point where JTEM
can't abide _any_ discussion from jillery.
>
Rather than (fail to) argue about the semantics
of "paradox", maybe one could discuss the merits
of Drake's equation?
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#Equation
>

Be aware that JTEM doesn't abide any discussion worth having.
>

Nope, Clip-n-Snark is about it.
>
That said, it's been noted that all the terms in the Drake
Equation beyond the third are sheer conjecture based on zero
evidence; IOW, WAGs, not even SWAGs.

>
You took the words out of my mouth. The Drake equation is pure
speculation, not remotely scientific.
>

Agreed. To be fair, however, I believe it was generated as a
basis for discussion, and was never intended (by Drake) to
be rigorous. Those who quote it as semi-gospel (IIRC we had
a rather loud one here a while ago) lost track of that or
simply ignored it to advance a personal agenda.

>

Exactly.  I knew Frank and talked with him about it. The point was to identify what we knew and didn't know, and suggest where future efforts
ought to be concentrated.  Back then (early 70s) we knew significantly less than we do now, but what we don't know continues to dominate. "Pure speculation" isn't the case.