Does Modern Science Owe Its Existence to Religion?

[Statler Waldorf]

---

I was hoping to avoid this massive amount of cut and paste with the generic abc example. I assumed that you would understand where you where incorrect without me dictating it to you.

(Major Premise)
N=R*fs*fp*ne*fl*fi*fc*L

(Minor Premise)-We could use each of these as their own premise, and of course we should, I've done this for ease of posting
R=20
fs=0.1
fp=0.5
ne=2
fl=1
fi=0.01
fc=0.01
L=10,000

(Conclusion)
11

I could write this instead as If A and B then C, or:

The Drake equation is valid
The variables we have determined are correct
There are ten detectable extraterrestrial civilizations within the Milky Way. (-1 for ourselves)

You see, numbers can be used to avoid unclear or malleable wording. If numbers could not be used to create a syllogism you would be unable to respond to this post from your PC. (let it sink in)
You can use numbers to represent anything at all you wish to say. Think of them as a common foreign language. In the end it doesn't matter if I use words, numbers, or colored shells the idea is represented as a syllogism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra_(logic)

Here's a great article for you

http://www.kerryr.net/pioneers/boolean.htm

---

Do you still need the multi-verse or can you build that yourself? Note that I do not believe in aliens. I accept the possibility that they could exist. If we ever find an alien I'll link you the wiki. Have fun while you're away.

---

Thanks, I did have a good time while I was away and I do not believe in aliens either, nor mult-verses. You are seriously trying to use the Drake equation as logical proof? I'll let the late Michael Crichton tell you why that fails...

---

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:
N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL
Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet’s life during which the communicating civilizations live.
This serious-looking equation gave SETI a serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses—just so we’re clear—are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.
As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion.

---

[The Grand Nudger]

You can criticize the assumptions, as can I, but it's still a syllogism. Say it Statler, you know what I want to hear.

(I was very surprised that you went down this road, what with all of the syllogisms for god being fallacious, and yet, syllogisms)

[Statler Waldorf]

You can criticize the assumptions, as can I, but it's still a syllogism. Say it Statler, you know what I want to hear.

(I was very surprised that you went down this road, what with all of the syllogisms for god being fallacious, and yet, syllogisms)

Au contraire, I was surprised you went down this road with all the valid syllogisms for God's existence. I never said you could not present a valid syllogism for aliens; you just can't present a convincing sound syllogism, which of course you haven't. Many atheists require more proof for the existence of God than they do aliens, special pleading. You can’t see the problem there?

[The Grand Nudger]

You know I may actually make a post in Ry'leh compiling every time you get stuffed and try to let the thread die, just so I can refer people to it every time you trot out a similar or identical argument. No special pleading on my part, the god proposition and the alien proposition are identical to me. Dismissing one dismisses the other on identical grounds. Hefty claim btw, valid arguments for god, care to post it? You might win a Nobel prize. Also, you could post it as an algebraic equation..lol.

[Anomalocaris]

You know I may actually make a post in Ry'leh compiling every time you get stuffed and try to let the thread die, just so I can refer people to it every time you trot out a similar or identical argument. No special pleading on my part, the god proposition and the alien proposition are identical to me. Dismissing one dismisses the other on identical grounds. Hefty claim btw, valid arguments for god, care to post it? You might win a Nobel prize. Also, you could post it as an algebraic equation..lol.

Your indignation at the fact that the tulip turnip is wasting your time doesn't seem to have stopped him from wasting more of your time. But it's easy to stop him. You can still talk about him, just don't pretend to yourself that anything useful can come out of talking to him.

[The Grand Nudger]

I have nothing if not time Chuck. It's all smiles for me anyway.

[Napoléon]

No special pleading on my part, the god proposition and the alien proposition are identical to me.

Maybe I'm getting this wrong, but I don't think at all that the arguments for god and arguments for extra-terrestrial life are at all identical. The argument for ET has far more fucking weight.

[The Grand Nudger]

In and of themselves yeah, very different. However, as far as the drake equation and some argument for the existence of god, the problems for both arguments are very similar. On the other hand, the drake equation is falsifiable, so it's more "along it's way" to becoming a valid argument. The god argument hasn't even started yet, except in the minds of believers. Even there it's not so much an argument as it is the white flag of surrender.

[Statler Waldorf]

You know I may actually make a post in Ry'leh compiling every time you get stuffed and try to let the thread die, just so I can refer people to it every time you trot out a similar or identical argument. No special pleading on my part, the god proposition and the alien proposition are identical to me. Dismissing one dismisses the other on identical grounds. Hefty claim btw, valid arguments for god, care to post it? You might win a Nobel prize. Also, you could post it as an algebraic equation..lol.

Ugh, I hate having to teach you logic for free. You are confusing valid argument with sound argument, the cosmological, moral, transcendental, and ontological arguments for God are all valid arguments (the conclusion logically follows from the premises), the debate has always been whether they are sound or not (the premises are true).

P1. All dogs fly
P2. Daisy is a Dog
C. Therefore, Daisy flies

Is a valid argument, it is not a sound one though.

It’s easy to think of valid arguments for God’s existence, here is one…
P1. Scripture is inerrant
P2. Scripture says God exists
C. Therefore, God exists.
That’s also a valid argument. Anything else you want to know about the basics of logic?

[The Grand Nudger]

Good good, we're getting somewhere. A valid argument may have false premises and false conclusions. Would you be willing to concede that your argument is valid, but contains false premises and false conclusions? As does the Drake equation, for example. Should I write that out numerically?