Talk:Search for extraterrestrial intelligence

Corrections/clarifications on META and BETA added

I fixed some wording and added details on the META and BETA searches. Darren, 20 November 2005.

Stopping condition

Quote: individual SETI projects have clearly defined "stop" conditions

What are the stopping conditions for the Allen Telescope Array?

Tom

Main condition is scarcity of funding.

Section on "Other grid programming projects" moved

The section "Other grid programming projects" doesn't belong in this article, it belongs with SETI@home. While SETI@home is mentioned in this article, this article is by no means about a grid computing project. Thus, a section on "other" such projects doesn't belong. I have moved this to the SETI@home article.

Hard Science

SETI I believe can hardly qualify as soft science since its basic tenet is not falsifiable. Any comments? 69.211.150.60 13:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The very strongest statements, such as intelligent civilizations must exist somewhere else in the universe other than Earth are indeed not falsifiable. But no reasonable SETI researcher would claim this. Instead they claim we have found (did not find) the following evidence... which *is* falsifiable.

"Science" is primarily a methdology: make a hypothesis and test it. Good theories make predictions that are specific and distinquishing, and can hypothetically be falsified by contradictory evidence. SETI is not a theory. SETI is a research program. It's no different than searching for unicorns or signatures in genomes that say "Yahweh designed this." In short, it does not qualify as hard science despite it's "affiliations." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.31.30 (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The observations of SETI are very hard science. The basic hypothesis (for radio observations) is There exists at least one coherent microwave transmitter, not made by humans, of at least X watts, visible to us, in our galaxy. This is falsifiable by looking at a certain sensitivity level and not finding any....

     Wrong. Absense of evidence is not a "falsification." You do not know what you're talking about.

...The opposite hypothesis, There exists no coherent microwave transmitters of more the X watts anywhere in the galaxy is also falsifiable, by finding one. These hypotheses in principal could be quite strong, since the physics of radio supports detecting very small transmitters, though we can only see big ones now. We know the waves are coherent over very long ranges (radio interferometer observations between earth and satellites, and VLBI) so antennnas capable of detecting roughly 1 watt transmitters, anywhere in the galaxy, are in theory possible (though way too expensive now, of course). This leads to a very strong falsifiable statement, such as There are no transmitters, not built by us, of 1 watt or more anywhere in the galaxy

Now suppose you find a signal. Then your hypothesis is There is no non-intelligent process that generates signal with characteristics Z where Z is modulated, narrow-band, or some other trait. This is falsifiable by thinking of a non-intelligent process that could create such a signal.

Suppose you don't find a signal. Then the falsifiable hard science part is there are no transmitters in our galaxy of power X or more. Successively softer are the conclusions there are no radio using civilizations, then there are no technical civilizations, and there are no civilizations, and there are no intelligent beings.

Statements about beings based on biology are in principal falsifiable, too, since nothing in physics prevents you from examining each planet in detail. So the statement there exists (or does not exist) any self-replicating molecules of size X or greater, anywhere in the galaxy except Earth is in principal falsifiable. Of course this is even less practical to check than a comprehensive radip search.

Basically, claims about evidence are hard science, but claims about existence are not. I think all the serious SETI scientists understand this very well indeed.

LouScheffer 16:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The hypothesis 'Life exists on other planets' is not falsifiable. Sorry. My point is that other studies are claimed to be pseudoscience because they are not falsifiable. By that definition SETI is pseudoscience. If one tries to be consistent. 68.109.234.155 19:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain why you think this? The hypothesis a technical civilization exists on Mars is falsifiable, and we have falsified it. The hypothesis life exists on Mars we are quite close (in historical time) to either falsifying or proving, by a global survey, finding the most likely spots, sending robot laboratories, etc. Doing the same for other planets in the solar system is harder, and planets around other stars much harder yet, but it does not seem physically impossible. So the idea is clealy falsifiable, though we do not have the technology to do so yet. LouScheffer 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, we would have to observe something that would show that life does not exist anywhere in the universe to falsify the statement 'Life exists on other planets' In other words the classic 'there exists a black swan' is not falsifiable since there is no observation that will show the opposite. To me this is a fallacy. Now some people say astrology is pseudoscience but it IS falsifiable. And many of Freuds theories are falsifiable. There seems to be a great misunderstanding about all of this. Some people say that economics is not a science or archaeology. Do you see my point? 68.109.234.155 19:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I see your point, if SETI was trying to settle whether life exists anywhere in the universe. But (most) SETI has smaller goals, trying to determine if life exists in our galaxy. (Check out the Drake equation, current radio and optical surveys, etc.). This seems clearly falsifiable to me (we've determined it for one planet (Earth), are almost done with another (Mars), and it's only a matter of scale to extend this to the trillion or so planets in the galaxy.). Do you agree that the statement 'Life exists in our galaxy' is falsifiable? If so, why not? LouScheffer 20:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not falsifiable. Again it order to falsify it you must propose an observation that would falsify it. Again if I say all swans are white all I have to do is produce one black swan and the would be the falsifying observation. What would be the falsifying observation in the preceding example? Again how would you falsify a black swan exists? Do you see the point. It is all in the falsification wiki article. 68.109.234.155 22:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It also depends on your definition of life - if 'life' is expected to cover a whole planet uniformly and is easy to find (in say the first foot of soil) the a statement 'there is life on Mars' is falsifiable. But if, as is more reasonable, *life* can be hiding in small pockets, at unknown depth, and has unknown chemical make up, then the statement is not falsifiable, since you can't look everywhere and in every concievable way to find it. So define what you mean by *life* first. sbandrews (t) 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements that something exists *are* falsifiable *if* you specify a limited place to search. For example, purple elephants exist in the San Diego zoo is falsifiable. Likewise, purple elephants exist on Earth, since you can examine the Earth in enough detail to find any purple elephants, if they exist. If you don't find any, you've falsified it. Purple elephants exist in our galaxy is beyond our ability to settle right now, but not in principle. Only the fully general Purple elephants exist is not verifiable, since they might exist in some far away part of the universe we cannot even in principle examine. Applied to SETI, the statement life exists in our galaxy is falsifiable - you search for it in enough detail to find it if it exists, using whatever definition of life you adopt. If you have examined all the possible places, and not found it, then it does not exist. Of course we cannot do this yet, but falsifiability requires that we can do do in principle, not that we can do so right now. LouScheffer 22:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No saying life exists in the galaxy is not falsifiable. Again what would we observe to show the premise is false??? OK then you must agree that saying God exists is falsifiable. 68.109.234.155 22:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, life does indeed exist in the galaxy - you and I are alive, and we exist in the galaxy. The claim that life exists in the galaxy is falsifiable, although the test would be rather difficult - check every planet in the galaxy. Not presently possible, but not a theoretically impossibility. But since live does exist in the galaxy, we know it can exist. --RLent 21:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How about life exists on Mars? Do you agree that this is falsifiable? If so, then 'life exists in our galaxy is just as falsifiable; it's only a matter of scale. LouScheffer 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How about aliens came to earth 1.5 billion years ago and planted the first DNA or bacteria and started life. Do you think that is falsifiable? Or black swans exists in this room. Then extrapolate the black swans exist on earth. Only just a matter of scale? 68.109.234.155 23:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"but falsifiability requires that we can do do in principle, not that we can do so right now" I do not think that is correct otherwise we can always say we can go back in time and see what happened or go forward to see what will happen. 68.109.234.155 23:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not a valid point. We could, given enough time, build probes that could search every planet in the galaxy for life. It's not at all clear that we could, even in principle, build a time machine. The goals of SETI are much more modest. The claim "there is a transmitter on some planet outside the solar system sufficiently strong to be detected from Earth" is falsifiable.--RLent 18:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you people are missing the point. The falsifiability argument is meant to show that no matter how many times we look and find nothing, you people are just going to say we haven't looked enough and ramble on about "absence of proof" and "scale." Also you might consider that just because something is soft science doesn't mean that its pseudoscience -you don't really need to break your backs trying to prove that SETI is "hard." This article contains a lot of bias on a subject which is fairly controversial. Drunkboxer 17:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, your speculation as to what the "you people" are going to say is irrelevant to the issue at hand: whether or not SETI claims are falsifiable. You seem to be saying that they are not falsifiable, not because they aren't, but because even if they are, people will make excuses. That's hardly a good argument.

Any argument that assumes that SETI proponents will never give up despite having searched extensively and repeatedly and found nothing within a limited and well-defined search range is assuming that proponents are not rational to begin with. So it's not surprising the conclusion of such an argument is that the search is not rational. --C S (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

falsifiability

So the criticism of SETI on falsifiability grounds is problematic. I have no complaint against it as a criticism, but it's strange to insert it here to say the least. There is much of science that does not proceed on the basis of falsifiable claims, nor do many scientists think of themselves as trying to falsify their claims (rather they see themselves as confirming them). So falsifiability is a bit of a straw man in that regard. I realize it is a very popular (in the sense of "pop science) way to present science, but it hardly gets at the intricacies of actual science. Also, in a strict sense, SETI is falsifiable. An exhaustive search would disprove the hypothesis (just like a thorough enough search would disprove the existence of certain hypothetical particles). --C S (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Radio Signal Destruction Past 2 Light Years Distance?

The History Channel 2008 1-shot "Life After People" (not the 2009 series) production says that SETI scientists have found that the radio signal bubble expanding around earth breaks down pretty rapidly, not even reaching Proxima Centauri in complete form. see:

• Life After People - Part 1 Of 9 (beginning)
• Life After People - Part 9 Of 9 (go to position 05:00)

... does this mean that SETI is pointless? But if radio signals break up, why do visible light images (also made of photons but another frequency) retain their correct structure over billions of light years? --Radical Mallard 11:15 PM EST 5/13/09

Thanks for the interesting links. No, David Brin was not saying that SETI is pointless (at least in that excerpt) or that you cannot detect a signal is of ET origin. What he said was that the idea of a cloud of coherent radio and TV signals and so forth expanding around Earth to the rest of the universe is mistaken. It "dissipates into noise". Probably signal strength is one issue here. Brin actually believes active SETI is dangerous, so I doubt he thinks that all terrestrial signals become harmless noise before it reaches the nearest star. I have no idea what you are talking about images "retain[ing] their correct structure over billions of light years". Even a laser shot out into space will lose coherence after a certain point. Brin's comment was about both radio and TV signals. --C S (talk) 04:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Brin believed they were dangerous, but I believe the finding that the signals break up is a new thing that he was not aware of, and he pointed out in the video that it came from SETI itself (which was surprising) ... and by "images" I mean images of stars, galaxies, nebulae, etc. I guess the radio equivalent, however, is a macroscopic radio signal, not a little human-radio-station/tv-station signal example. But are aliens going to send out radio frequency signals the size and shape of whole stars? This new information seems to imply that SETI is a pointless exercise. --Radical Mallard 11:57 AM EST 5/14/09

No, understanding signals break up is not a new thing. We observe this all the time, and there are many people who work in radio and TV whose job description entails trying to minimize this kind of effect. This is basic undergrad engineering, known for much of the 20th century at least. Incidentally, this is also known certainly to any SETI scientist. The new thing, according to what Brin said, are the computations that show that our radio and TV signals in particular will not make it past the nearest star. Again, I don't really know how new this "new thing" really is either. I suspect it's a simple enough calculation, but perhaps nobody was really interested in publishing the details until now. Your comments about signals the "size and shape" of stars, I think, is reflecting a host of misunderstandings. I'm not familiar with SETI or a lot of what they do, but I've seen some SETI papers, and they are all about mitigating the various problems associated with picking out very weak signals among a lot of noise. Indeed, one of the justifications given for SETI is that SETI research has produced some scientific, mathematical, and engineering advancements, so regardless of whether SETI is successful, it has produced and probably will continue to produce useful knowledge. --C S (talk) 16:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No. When I said "the signals break up" I specifically meant the computations Brin specifically mentioned as new. I don't understand why you thought I was saying something else. And also, no, it's not "a host of misunderstandings". An image is information. I came up with an answer to my own question. It's true a human sized image, made up of light-frequency photons, will break up and become unrecognizable from light years away, even with the best telescope... but if the image were the size of a whole galaxy or nebula, it would be recognizable as what it is for quite some distance in space. Similarly, radio and television signals (made up of radio-frequency photons) are so small in geometric scale and so weak in terms of power at their origin that apparently they lose all resolution as information before 2 light years distance. If you had a radio source emitter of the size and scale (and emitted power) of a star, or galaxy, the story would be different. But this does suggest to me that SETI is more of a wild goose chase than was originally thought, and regardless of whatever secondary mathematical progress there has been, it may be time to give up and try to focus more efforts on long term space travel and actually living in space, not to mention creating working and reliable cryogenics and artificial intelligence. --Radical Mallard 4:45 PM EST 5/14/09

Consider a source at 10 light years. An isotropically distributed signal covers an area of 1.1e35 square metres. Arecibo has an area of 7.1e4 sq metres, so samples 6.6e-31 of the total signal area. A quantum of radiation at 100 MHz has energy 6.6e-26J. A Megawatt transmitter emits 1.5e31 quanta per second, so Arecibo would detect 10 quanta per second under ideal conditions. At this sampling rate, information encoded by modulation of the signal is undetectable. So the signal is not "broken up" but the information it carries is. Since the quantum of GHz signals is larger, there are even fewer quanta detectable per second.96.54.53.165 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Gliese 581 e laser signal

Should this be included somewhere: [1]? Offliner (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

External links

I've deleted all of the external links from this article, because I believe they're completely unnecessary. Previously, there were way too many links, so I was just going to trim them down. But in doing so, I realised that any of the sites which were notable/important enough to be included also have their own WP articles and so should be listed under "See also" instead. Since there's no "official" SETI web site, it doesn't really make sense to try and list the sites of all the various SETI-related organisations (especially since Wikipedia is not a directory of links). There were also a lot of links to articles, etc. before, which while useful should be included as references in appropriate places instead of just being linked at the end of the article. Adam McMaster (talk) 08:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

goofy POV material

A couple of sections contain wildly POV material. The section "Interstellar Message Realized and Paper Projects" looks like a vanity edit. Under "Probe SETI and SETA experiments," the material on Rose and Wright's work clearly just represents their POV, but it stated as if their opinions were logical deductions whose validity was universally accepted.--Fashionslide (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

"Scientific Community"

The question of whether something is science is quickly a question of whether it is worth funding. In the article the clause I deleted (". . . an approach widely endorsed by the scientific community as hard science.") is immediately followed by: "The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources." We must conclude that the value of SETI is not as widely endorsed by the scientific community as it once was. Thus the clause is POV. It should be deleted, since it can't be changed to state that the scientific community supports SETI's public funding. Such support or lack thereof is going to depend entirely on whether public funding of SETI helps or hinders public funding of members' own projects. No one is disinterested. Neither are laymen taxpayers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confused as to the meaning of the term "hard science". Saying something is endorsed as hard science is not a comment about whether it is worth funding, of great value, or whatever. Given this confusion, I have a hard time disentangling your point from your comments. --C S (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Imagine the sentence following the deleted clause said: "Private funding supported SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by the U.S. government." The deleted clause would arguably not be POV then. The public funding would strongly imply a generally increased level of support by the community of scientists and laymen taxpayers. By the same line of reasoning, the fact of reduced public funding can be taken as a sign of reduced support by those same people. Thus it is POV to state that SETI is endorsed by the scientific community. It is supported by some, but that support in general is not what it used to be. The deleted clause disguises this changed level of support.

I think the adjective 'hard' is being mistakenly used as a counterpoint to 'pseudo'. The issue is one of science vs pseudoscience. I'm not arguing that reduced funding means that more people think of SETI as a pseudoscience. They don't. They just think (probably correctly) that it doesn't merit public funding. Eye.earth (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, I think you are conflating issues. Issue #1: "endorsed as hard science" does not have anything to do with the level of funding. You are seemingly interpreting this to mean "endorsed via governmental support and widespread scientific community pressure to fund it". So your connecting the dots of the two sentences to imagine that they are reflecting some POV is quite unjustified. Whether or not SETI is hard science is something that is debated and discussed in the article, so a summary sentence explaining the scientific community consensus is perfectly ok. Issue #2: Scientific value is not strongly correlated with level of funding. Indeed, the level of funding is often pointed out to be misleading. For political reasons, the government funnels huge amounts of money into certain diseases instead of more basic science research. This doesn't mean scientists generally think researching those specific diseases is more important than understanding the basic science. Issue #3: you don't like the term "hard science" but it is often used. It is not generally used as a "counterpoint to 'pseudo'". It is used as a counterpoint to "soft science". See hard science for a basic explanation. --C S (talk) 02:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

To avoid problems of misinterpretation, I have changed the term "endorsed" to "viewed". I hope that resolves whatever issues you are having here. The meaning to me is clearly the same. --C S (talk) 02:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The government directs the flow of scientific largess based on input from many different interests. That this results in some grotesque misallocations in no way invalidates my point that a reduced level of governmental funding indicates a change in the general level of support for SETI. The question is whether it has changed in the scientific community specifically. It surely has, which is probably why public funding dried up. The science behind the hardware was presumably always considered hard, but the soft science speculations and projections originally justifying the plausibility of SETI's success have apparently coalesced into harder and harder science that compels people to realize that advanced life is arguably much, much rarer than first supposed. The clause "an approach widely viewed by the scientific community as hard science" seems to me still blatantly POV. But "an approach variously endorsed by the scientific community as hard science" seems to me an acceptable compromise, with the added Skeptical Inquirer footnote link to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still greatly puzzled here. Your phrasing of "variously endorsed" indicates that less people think of SETI as hard science, and that indeed in particular, some major groups of scientists may think otherwise. Do you have any justification for saying this? Other than these comments about funding which is irrelevant to whether SETI is considered "hard science"? Indeed the new source you added states "Considering the negative search results, the creation of excessive expectations is only grist to the mill of the naysayers-for instance, members of Congress who question the scientific standing of SETI, imputing to it wishful thinking, and denying it financial support. This absolutely negative approach to SETI is certainly wrong, because contrary to the UFO hoax, SETI (as UCLA space scientist Mark Moldwin [2004] stressed in a recent issue of this magazine) is based on solid scientific premises and considerations." You still seem to be conflating the issue of public funding with the issue of the view of SETI as "hard science". This quote rightly points out that while Congress may question the science, scientists do not, although they rightly remain skeptical. Since your quote does not refute the statement "widely viewed by the scientific community as hard science" I am reverting you. You are free to revert, of course, but so far two editors are against your position, and as far as I can tell, you have not a single citation in support of your position. I have opened an RFC in the section below to get an outside opinion. Regards, --C S (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

A more detailed response to your last comments: The government directs the flow of scientific largess based on input from many different interests. That this results in some grotesque misallocations in no way invalidates my point that a reduced level of governmental funding indicates a change in the general level of support for SETI. I never said it did. You are the one that argued the stronger point that reduced governmental funding must indicate less support from the scientific community. I pointed out that there are "grotesque misallocations" (that do not indicate the level of scientific support) so arguing based on governmental funding is fallacious. The question is whether it has changed in the scientific community specifically. It surely has, which is probably why public funding dried up. Here you are indeed arguing the stronger point that I pointed out was fallacious. Since there are "grotesque misallocations", how can you argue that less public funding = less scientific support? You are also still confused in claiming that "widely viewed as hard science by the scientific community" is wrong, based on lack of public funding. The science behind the hardware was presumably always considered hard, but the soft science speculations and projections originally justifying the plausibility of SETI's success have apparently coalesced into harder and harder science that compels people to realize that advanced life is arguably much, much rarer than first supposed. So you're saying that SETI is an even harder science that when it started? And this reasoning justifies claiming that the scientific community has various views of SETI as not hard science? The clause "an approach widely viewed by the scientific community as hard science" seems to me still blatantly POV. Why's that? Because you don't think it's hard science? Or you don't think scientists do? Well then, can you find a source for some scientists that claim it's not hard science? The source you added indicates "it is viewed as hard science". But "an approach variously endorsed by the scientific community as hard science" seems to me an acceptable compromise, with the added Skeptical Inquirer footnote link to back it up. Variously endorsed? This indicates that some parts of the scientific community do not think of it as hard science. Which parts? --C S (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC on whether the article should state SETI is "widely viewed as hard science by the scientific community"

I'm supposed to place a neutral summary here, but since I don't understand Eye.earth's point, I'll do the best I can. The argument, so far as I understand it, is that the above phrase "widely viewed as hard science by the scientific community" is POV, and should be "variously viewed" or "variously endorsed". This is because Eye.earth claims that the lack of public funding of SETI means that somehow its status as a hard science has diminished. I claim that its perception as a hard science has not diminished, and am justified by the two citations so far in the article (one of which was added by Eye.earth). See the section immediately above for the discussion. --C S (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Why not avoid this whole discussion of "hard science". It seems to me that you are just trying to say that SETI is using "scientific and mathematical methods" to detect other intelligent civilizations. What about this wording
  

The general approach of SETI projects is to use scientific methods tosurvey the sky to detect the existence of transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet – an approach widely viewed by the scientific community as hard science.[1][2] The funded early on by United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recently work has been primarily funded by private sources. Coffeespoon (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would like to modify Coffeespoon's suggestion as follows:

"The general approach of SETI projects is the use of peer-reviewed scientific methods to detect the existence any electromagnetic transmissions from any extraterrestrial civilizations sufficiently advanced to emit them. The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources." Eye.earth (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Coffeespoon's revision is an improvement. Like Coffeespoon, I think the note about "hard science" is currently a distraction. If there's a compelling reason to keep the phrase "hard science", I think it should surrounded by more context for readers unfamiliar with the lingo. For example, contextualize the phrase by summarizing the Criticism section. (Even still, I don't think the phrase "hard science" helps the article.) The lead consists of two relative short paragraphs at the moment, and these points could help fill it out to be a more complete, concise stand-alone summary of the subject.

With regard to the question I understand the RFC as posing, that is, what association there is (if any) between a research programme's level of public funding and its science "hardness" (i.e. legitimacy): I think editor C.S. is correct to note that lack of financial support from Congress doesn't imply a lack of support from the scientific community. It would be helpful to have references to astronomers and similarly qualified scientists (independent of SETI) showing their opinions on SETI's legitimacy. After a quick scan through the article the only such support seems to come from Mark Moldwin. Of course, it seems questionable to anchor the opinion of the scientific community on one scientist. If other support exists, it should be made more explicit in the article -- e.g., specify exactly who supports SETI. Emw2012 (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I like the above paragraph by Eye.earth. 'Hard science' doesn't sound like an encyclopaedic term to me (although any scientist will know what it means). The US government have funded some crazy projects and failed to fund some good ones, so that doesn't really demonstrate much. References to comments from respected scientists would be helpful. GyroMagician (talk) 07:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• I think the entry by Eye.earth nails it. I believe that what Eye.earth wrote expresses the idea that you are trying to get across. I think "hard science" should be dropped. Eye.earth has expressed a neutral point of view and got the message across. Ti-30X (talk) 14:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• I would like to modify Eye.earth's suggestion as follows: Kevin Baas^talk 16:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The general approach of SETI projects is the use of peer-reviewed scientific methods to detect the existence any electromagnetic transmissions from any extraterrestrial civilizations sufficiently advanced to emit them. The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.

• Much better. But detect sounds like SETI regularly find such transmissions. How about this? GyroMagician (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

SETI projects use scientific methods to detect search for electromagnetic transmissions from extraterrestrial civilizations sufficiently advanced to emit them. The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.

I like this better. "search" is much more appropriate, and SETI in fact stands for "Search for Extraterrestrial..." Kevin Baas^talk 17:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think deletion of the phrase "peer reviewed" is justified if it means that SETI includes non peer-reviewed projects of sufficient number to color one's impression of the collective effort. Is that indeed the case? If it isn't, then why not leave it in? Eye.earth (talk) 06:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• All scientific work is peer-reviewed. Nobody normally mentions that CERN is a peer-reviewed project, for example, although every scientific publication coming out of CERN most certainly is. I don't think it is necessary here either. GyroMagician (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• As described above, it's not significant. We wouldn't put "Micheal Douglass, who wears shoes, ...". Same applies here. Kevin Baas^talk 15:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• You wouldn't state that Michael Douglas wears shoes, but you might state when he joined the Screen Actors Guild. As for CERN, it's a specific entity funded by 20 European states and has 2,600 full-time employees and almost 8,000 scientists from hundreds of universities and research facilities. SETI is nothing like that. Peer-review is done by peers. Aren't peers specifically veto-empowered coworkers whose input is most active during the pre-publication process? What is considered peer review is surely something formal and potentially very threatening. It can break a career. Can any SETI researcher end the funding and career of another SETI researcher? More specifically, has that ever happened? If not, then we should consider whether SETI is actually peer reviewed. There has been criticism of SETI in general, and that is probably why it is no longer funded by the U.S. gov't. But that's not formal peer review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I chose CERN as an example of a well-respected scientific institute that most people have heard of. Peer review for scientists usually means that anything we publish is in a (generally anonymously) peer-reviewed journal. I submit my paper to the journal, who will then select 2 or 3 experts in the topic of the paper to read it, decide if it has scientific merit, and check that I didn't just make up a bunch of stuff. The experts are not usually from the same institution. It is quite common to have papers rejected (at least on the first pass). Rejection in itself doesn't harm your career - but a lack of publications does. I don't have to publish in peer reviewed journals, but only PR papers will count towards my publication record. If I start publishing something controversial in non-peer-reviewed journals (without also publishing PRed papers) it would be bad for my reputation and the reputation of my lab, and my boss would probably fire me (bad reputation = no funding). CERN publish all kinds of things, from press releases telling us they've switched on the LHC to scientific papers about what they found. It's only the scientific papers that really count toward their reputation as a science institute. It's the same for SETI. If you look here you'll find a list of authors and their publications - some are 'light' pieces for general consumption, others are serious scientific papers. SETI's scientific reputation is judged only on the PRed papers. I don't know about internal PR. In most fields of science, funding is determined by publications (number and impact factor), which I guess is a form of PR of the lab. As far as I know, veto-empowered coworkers are not common, so I doubt CERN or SETI have such a system (but most of us have a veto-empowered boss!). GyroMagician (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I took a look at the list of articles and their authors. Many, most, or all of the Principal Investigators don't appear to have done SETI research. I clicked on the names of numerous Principal Investigators and then searched for "SETI" on the page and repeatedly found nothing among their published works. Finally I found one, Margaret Race, who published "Protecting Ourselves Against Mars, SETI Institute News", probably a non-Pr'd piece of journalism. The PI's are real scientists, but their work is at best only indirectly related to SETI's mission. Their work is hard science, but not hard SETI science. (I suspect this association is the source of the "hard science" claim for SETI.) The names that aren't Principal Investigators have written about SETI, but many of articles are journalism for space.com and/or the authors are official members of the SETI group. There is some solid SETI stuff written by them -- I found a hard-core article on programming the Allen telescope -- but not a lot. I vote to leave the phrase out for the reason that I stated above: "I think deletion of the phrase "peer reviewed" is justified if it means that SETI includes non peer-reviewed projects of sufficient number to color one's impression of the collective effort." Eye.earth (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I think the point is that these are serious scientists, with a peer reviewed publishing history, who also work on the SETI program. It's a bit hard to publish much about ETI itself, because they haven't found any yet (which is not surprising to anyone, and certainly not an indication that there isn't any - just that space is a big place, and the search may be a long one). But at least we agree about the phrasing, if for different reasons. I vote to leave out the phrase "peer reviewed" because it is redundant. I think that gives three of us in agreement so far? GyroMagician (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just to summarize the reasoning behind my vote: I vote to leave out the phrase "peer reviewed" because it is redundant with "scientific". Kevin Baas

• My suggested version included the entire phrase "peer-reviewed scientific methods". They arguably go together for something like SETI, because many readers will at least initially read the article with the same kind of skepticism that canceled SETI's public funding. If "peer reviewed" is redundant, what about "scientific methods"? Of course SETI uses scientifc methods. But of course "scientific methods" include (sooner or later) "peer review". If you delete the latter doesn't the former become just as redundant? Really, why not go back to my original suggestion to delete the entire clause, as follows: "The general approach of SETI projects is to survey the sky to detect the existence of transmissions from a civilization on a distant planet. The United States government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources." (BTW, it appears that many (all?) of the Principal Investigators listed here haven't actually published anything about SETI. The ones who apparently have are listed here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 16:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• I like the phrasing "civilization on a distant planet" better than "from extraterrestrial civilizations sufficiently advanced to emit them". it's simpler and less awkward. Though to match, tense, one would have to put something like "civilizations on distant planets." Kevin Baas^talk 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• SETI projects use scientific methods to search for electromagnetic transmissions from civilizations on distant planets.extraterrestrial civilizations sufficiently advanced to emit them. ...

• Another alternative, striking the scientific phrase altogether:

• SETI projects use scientific methods to search for survey the sky in search of electromagnetic transmissions from civilizations on distant planets.extraterrestrial civilizations sufficiently advanced to emit them. ...

• Though a good point was brought up earlier that some ppl are apparently skeptical about the scientific-ness of SETI (why, who knows), so the scientific part should stay in. In any case, still a good example to show how readability can be improved. Kevin Baas^talk 17:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Straw poll on wording

We seem to be in agreement that the phrase "widely viewed as hard science by the scientific community" is unneccessary, as noone has suggested it's inclusion for quite some time. But we have, through discussion, made some improvements to the current wording. And I'd like to see what people think is the best, and what would be acceptable to them. I have listed them below. Please rank them 1,2,3... best to worst, or 'no.' if you don't find the version acceptable. feel free to comment next to your vote, and if you vote 'no.' please explain why. Also, there is a question on whether the phrase "peer review" should be included. Please give a brief answer to that. I will start things off.

The general approach of SETI projects is the use of {peer-reviewed} scientific methods to detect the existence any electromagnetic transmissions from any extraterrestrial civilizations sufficiently advanced to emit them. The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.

• no. for stylistic reasons. too verbose, sentence too long, etc. nothing factually wrong with it, but i think we can improve the prose considerably. Kevin Baas^talk 14:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• no. I don't like the wording. GyroMagician (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

SETI projects use {peer-reviewed} scientific methods to search for electromagnetic transmissions from extraterrestrial civilizations sufficiently advanced to emit them. The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.

• 3. Kevin Baas^talk 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• 2. Emw2012 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• 1. I like the qualifier sufficiently advanced to emit them. We haven't been able to do this for very long. It already makes the reader think about why we may not have found signals from other civilizations. GyroMagician (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

SETI projects use {peer-reviewed} scientific methods to search for electromagnetic transmissions from civilizations on distant planets. The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.

• 1. Clear, concise, and thorough. Kevin Baas^talk 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• 1. Per above. I think "on distant plants" could be removed. Also, "Government" should be in lowercase, and "early on" is a bit colloquial. Emw2012 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• 2. I think this is fine, but prefer the previous option. 'Distant planets' is needed, to emphasise that we're looking into space here. How about The United States Government contributed to earlier SETI projects,...GyroMagician (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I must've mentally inserted "extraterrestrial" before "civilizations". I like the phrasing of "earlier SETI projects", and would again note that "Government" should be lowercase. Emw2012 (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

'g' not 'G' - yep, you're right, I meant to include that in the modified version ;-) GyroMagician (talk) 07:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

SETI projects survey the sky in search of electromagnetic transmissions from civilizations on distant planets. The United States Government contributed to SETI early on, but recent work has been primarily funded by private sources.

• 2. More clear and concise than my first choice, but leaves it too open. (how do they survey the sky? with rocks? telescopes?) Kevin Baas^talk 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• 3. Too imprecise. Emw2012 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• 3. Too imprecise - SETI do more than switch on a telescope and wait, which is not suggested by the above. GyroMagician (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the phrase "peer reviewed" be included? why or why not?

• no. It is redundant with the word "scientific", and as such adds little to the article, i.e. is not notable. Kevin Baas^talk 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• No. Although I don't think "peer-reviewed" and "scientific" are necessarily redundant, I don't think the former is of enough concern here to include it in the language above. Emw2012 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• no. I think modern scientific method implies peer review, so it's not needed. GyroMagician (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a clear consensus for the third version, so I've changed the intro accordingly. Kevin Baas^talk 17:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)