Re: Drake's equation

On Thu, 9 May 2024 10:12:52 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by erik simpson
<eastside.erik@gmail.com>:

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.
>

I misspoke on that; what I meant, and should have said (as I
have in the past) was that the True Believers who assign
numerical values to terms past the 3rd, not the terms
themselves, are engaging in pure speculation. The terms
themselves are merely "talking points", as you note. Mea
culpa.

>

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
 the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov