Unlocking the Mystery of SETI: The Probability of a Scientific Revolution

  • Thread starter ideasrule
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Science
In summary: But this, too, is a huge gamble, and one with very little evidence to support it.In summary, according to this article, the scientific revolution was not guaranteed to happen on Earth, and if circumstances had been slightly different, humans may never have discovered the power of science. It seems that religious oppression may have been a factor in suppressing the development of this important field of study.
  • #1
ideasrule
Homework Helper
2,286
0
It seems that on Earth, the scientific revolution was by no means something guaranteed to happen; if circumstances had been slightly different in the 16th and 17th centuries--for example, if religious oppression had been slightly more severe--humans may never have discovered the power of science in explaining the natural world and would have continued to depend on religion and philosophy in answering questions about the universe.

What do SETI researchers think about the probability of intelligent life undergoing a scientific revolution? Is it something that's almost certain to happen, or something that happens in just a tiny minority of civilizations?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence
According to a sort of convergence theory, given enough time, living organisms evolve, simple life evolves intelligence and intelligent life evolves to technology and space exploration. It’s pretty simplistic.
BTW, Galileo, Kepler and Darwin were all deeply religious men, and scientists. When Monsignor Lemaître proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory, he was criticized by scientists, because of his religious background. So scientific oppression almost nipped that one in the bud.
 
  • #3
Hm, convergence. Why, though, can ET be expected to go through a scientific revolution if such a thing depended on many coincidences to happen on Earth?

"BTW, Galileo, Kepler and Darwin were all deeply religious men, and scientists."

Galileo was nevertheless persecuted by religious authorities, and the heliocentric model would have been forgotten if the church had been slightly more harsh in repressing it. My point was that the scientific revolution would not have happened if circumstances had been slightly different, not that religion always hurts science. It often does, but not always.

BTW, Darwin was not religious. Also, what's the scientific oppression you're talking about?
 
  • #4
The point of convergence is that it is inevitable. It wouldn’t necessarily have to happen like it did here, but it would happen. It’s kind of the 100 monkeys with typewriter’s eventually coming up with one of Shakespeare’s plays. I don’t really care for this theory/conjecture, so I can’t do SETI’s job for them, but that’s the argument.

By convergence, someone other than Galileo would then have popularized the heliocentric theory. The point is that the scientific method would have eventually been discovered and applied to the universe, no matter what.

Darwin studied to become an Anglican clergyman and quoted the Bible during his voyage on the Beagle. Only later in his life, did he call himself an agnostic.

The scientific community, to include Einstein, ridiculed Lemaître and his theory of a primordial atom as some kind of Genesis. Sounds like oppression to me.
“Intellectual brilliance is no guarantee against being dead wrong.” Carl Sagan
 
  • #5
ideasrule said:
It seems that on Earth, the scientific revolution was by no means something guaranteed to happen; if circumstances had been slightly different in the 16th and 17th centuries--for example, if religious oppression had been slightly more severe--humans may never have discovered the power of science in explaining the natural world and would have continued to depend on religion and philosophy in answering questions about the universe.

Like Arch2008 explains, and as the subtler implication of convergence states, the point is it will happen eventually. You seem to be convinced that had certain scientists of the mentioned centuries discovered their theories when they did, they would be lost forever. This is most likely patently false. It may have been "coincidence" or "luck" that it happened when it did, but the fact that it will happen at all is much more a function of human nature of inquiry, which states that it eventually will.

Similarly, you could argue that with the decline of the influence of Greece and the great philosophers of that age, the opportunity to develop calculus/astronomy/science was missed. The middle ages took over and no one got much done for quite a long time. But we see that middle eastern cultures were taking a stab at very similar things, as well as some asian cultures. Just seems to be the way this kind of stuff turns out for us humans.
 
  • #6
Arch2008 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergence
According to a sort of convergence theory, given enough time, living organisms evolve, simple life evolves intelligence and intelligent life evolves to technology and space exploration. It’s pretty simplistic

Simplistic, and also quite wrong. There is NO guarantee--none--that technological-capable intelligence will evolve. There is, in fact, very little evolutionary pressure to develop significant intelligence at all. Note the fact that even here on Earth, 99.9999% of organisms that ever lived have been dumb as posts and not even capable of basic tool use. Human-level intelligence simply isn't necessary for survival as countless other creatures have deftly proven over the past 3.5 billion years. Now, one might argue (and I'm not entirely convinced this is the case, either; to this day there are still isolated pockets of humanity with no technology more sophisticated than spears and fire which hasn't been brought in from the outside) that once a certain level of language use evolves, then technology is inevitable, but that's not the same thing as saying that technology is inevitable given life.
 
  • #7
True. There have been something like 10^12 species on Earth and less than 10 could build a campfire. As I posted, this is SETI's theory, not mine.
 

1. What is SETI and why is it important?

SETI stands for Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence and it is a scientific research program that aims to detect and communicate with potential intelligent life beyond Earth. It is important because it has the potential to revolutionize our understanding of the universe and our place in it.

2. How does SETI work?

SETI uses various methods to search for signals or signs of intelligent life, such as listening for radio signals from other planets or analyzing data from space missions. It also involves studying the conditions necessary for life to exist on other planets and identifying potential habitable exoplanets.

3. What is the probability of finding intelligent life through SETI?

The probability of finding intelligent life through SETI is difficult to determine as it depends on many factors such as the number of habitable planets, the technological advancements of other civilizations, and the likelihood of them sending out signals. Some estimates suggest that there could be thousands of potential intelligent civilizations in our galaxy alone, while others argue that the probability is extremely low.

4. What impact would the discovery of intelligent life have on society?

The discovery of intelligent life through SETI would have a profound impact on society, both scientifically and culturally. It would expand our understanding of the universe and potentially provide answers to some of the biggest questions about the origin of life and the possibility of extraterrestrial civilizations. It could also challenge our beliefs and perspectives about our place in the universe and potentially lead to technological advancements.

5. Are there any risks involved in searching for intelligent life through SETI?

There are some potential risks involved in searching for intelligent life through SETI, such as the possibility of receiving a signal from a hostile or advanced civilization. There are also ethical concerns about actively attempting to make contact with other civilizations without fully understanding the consequences. However, many scientists argue that the potential benefits of finding intelligent life outweigh these risks.

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
842
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
45
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
28
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
7
Views
832
Back
Top