PocketMatrix

I need help: (for those of you who know about this topic)<br>I have to write a paper on Carl Sagan and Frank Drake then I have to side with one of them. <br>So, do you think<br><br>1)YES, The Drake equation is a valid way to find life and Sagan was just trying to protect the species of our planet<br>OR<br><br>2)NO, Carl Sagan was right in saying "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." and the Drake equation is Bull<br><br><br>

well i dunno, depends what values you use doesnt it. what do you want? theres no way to prove it. there obviously are other species out there but how many we'll never know.<br><br>i cant believe you can write a whole paper on that. i think i just wrote all there is to write about it.

True<br>It's more a question of if the equation be used to determine anything...<br>

well, no then. the only way to know exactly how many is to look.

I think this is a good topic to use my 2000th post.<br>I think the equation only proves one thing: the capability of humans to racionalize about what they know zilt. I believe there IS life out there, maybe in some form we can't recogniize. That equation uses to many variables. I regard it as only a curiosity. It can't be proven except with our imagination.

some form we can't recognise?

Happy 2000th

Thanks, Maggie.<br><br>Yup, that's the way it was supposed to be written, Paul.<br>(Sometimes my Engrish scils are not verry pirfect )

I know this is off topic, but I like Carl Sagan.  I really enjoyed his book, "The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark."  If you have not read it, you should ASAP.  Although I do not care much about the recent UFO crazes, that he debunks over and over, there is alot of neat stuff on Psychics, Shamans, and other Occult subjects.  To see someone use objective science to explain the "supernatural" is really enlightning.  One thing I have not seen many occult debunkers takle though (including Carl Sagan) is the recent surge in neopaganism, druidism, wicca, satanism, and medieval sorcery.  If you browse for it on the internet, there seems to be quite a mass of it.  And many "newagers" are claiming to be able to summon dieties, daemons, demons, angels, spirit guides, and all kinds of mythical creatures to physical appearance here on Earth.  I personally with my anthropological intrests would like to witness some of these "summonings."  I wonder if the group or individual through intence belief forces him/herself to see these "creatures", or maybe they injest mushrooms or other halucinagenics.  There is alot of info on how to "summon" these creatures, and alot of info on these groups belief systems, but there is not much info on scientific observation of the groups rituals and results of the rituals.

Well, the Drake equation can only be completed when you actually know all of the variables. Which means that you won't be able to use it to find the entire population of alien civilizations until you do know the entire population of alien civilizations, atleats in this galaxy.<br>The equation, although very interesting and quite accurate, can only be used in a speculative nature. It is not science.

i started reading 'the cosmic connection' after reading this thread. its damn good. carl rocks.

Maggie,<br>  My vote is with Drake personally.  And, FYI, I will tell you my reasoning.<br><br>  The Drake equation is not B.S. by virtue of its intent.  Drake merely speculated that the equation could DEMONSTRATE THE LIKELYHOOD of E.T. life, not prove it.  It's a formula of statistics, not quantitative proof.  The point is, that if you run the Drake equation with REALLY low points in each category, you still end up with really large results.  Thus the only way to prove that it is faulty is to show that the equation uses incorrect formulai, or to show that one or more of the values must be 0.

The formula is not the problem. "Mathematically" it's ok. But you have to make a leap of faith in believing that it will correctly predict an event with "imagined" data.<br>(I don't know if I'm expressing myself clear enough here )

Like what I said. The formula can't be proven until you know all the variables. But when you know all the variables the formula is no longer useful. The purpose of the formula is purely a guess at the population of the universe (which has not been proven to be a finite dimension), and your guess is as good as mine or that formula's.<br>The Drake equation, however, was only meant as a guess and I have no clue why anyone but the hobbiest deap down inside of Mr. Drake knows about it. It's not very important, mearly common sense.<br>Pop of avg. solar system)/(number of avg. planets per solar system)(*(num of solarsystems in galaxy)*(number of galaxies in universe)<br>or smoething like that.

ah shut up