Re: Drake Equation
- "Mathewmaury", you wrote, in part:
> But using the Drake equation seemsThat is, in part, why I said you were "exceptional".
> a weak argument to 'prove' this
> conclusion. I do not say to throw the
> argument away, but it seems to lack
- --- In Maury_and_Baty, "Mathew Maury" wrote (post #2725):
> --- Robert Baty wrote:[snip]
>> As to the actual force of your argument, I haven't noticed any.Hi, Mat.
>> Are you talking about all that stuff about the "Drake Equation"?
> The force of the argument seems obvious to David. But Robert and
> Todd do not see it. This seems the argument David presents:
> Evolutionary parameters in the Drake equation predict Aliens
> will play the radio. We have not heard their radio.
> Is there a single conclusion to be drawn? No! Either the
> Aliens do not exist. Or they prefer to listen to CDs. Or
> some parameter in the equation is wrong. Or we have not been
> listening hard enough.
> There are many parameters in this Drake equation. David
> tries to force the conclusion 'the parameter that says
> evolution happens is wrong.' But this is not the only
> conclusion. If another parameter is wrong, then the result
> would be the same (no alien boombox).
> My opinion is that there is no alien boombox because there
> are no aliens because evolution does not happen. But using
> the Drake equation seems a weak argument to 'prove' this
> conclusion. I do not say to throw the argument away, but it
> seems to lack force.
Thank you for repeating, in different words, what I have already
pointed out. The premise of David's argument that "Evolutionary
parameters in the Drake equation predict Aliens will play the radio"
is a false premise. When the premise of an argument is wrong, it has
no force. I hope that your explanation of this is clearer to David
than mine has apparently been.
Todd S. Greene