Well said. The "Drake Equation" is complete and utter garbage. There is no such thing as a "probability" of any of those terms, in the way we normally understand probability, i.e. dice or card games.
That said, there probably are intelligent civilizations somewhere in the universe, but we have that pesky problem of distance and the speed of light, as you said. People like to imagine that eventually civilizations find a way around it, but in all likelihood they don't.
>Well said. The "Drake Equation" is complete and utter garbage. There is no such thing as a "probability" of any of those terms, in the way we normally understand probability, i.e. dice or card games.
I'd say that any result you try to pull from the Drake Equation is "complete and utter garbage."
The value in the Drake Equation isn't in any calculation we might do with it. Rather, it's a way to categorize both the variables necessary for the development of technological civilizations, and our ignorance as to both the value of such variables and variables we don't even know exist (which can be added as we learn more).
In fact, the Drake equation[0] was never intended to be useful as an equation:
The equation was formulated in 1961 by Frank Drake, not for purposes of
quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific
dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial
intelligence (SETI)
First, I was gently poking fun, not seriously criticizing. But since this is apparently that sort of conversation: no.
> There is no such thing as a "probability" of any of those terms...
There is a probability for each term in the Drake equation, but I assume you mean that we don't have a way of judging what it is. I agree.
> That said, there probably are intelligent civilizations somewhere in the universe
"there probably are" does not equal "I dunno, maybe" -- I'd argue it's a direct summarization of the nonsense that is the Drake equation, but just semantically it at least means greater than 0.5 probability, which we clearly can't establish.
Even then, he is putting bounds on probabilities. Specifically, that the chance that life arises around a random star is >> 1/(number of stars in visible universe).
The argument is really just trying to elevate vague and incorrect intuition beyond anywhere it has any right to be. It comes from not understanding just how serious a bias can be introduced by observer selection.
"Bullshit", as I use the term, is misrepresentation of the state of your knowledge by confident assertions you can't back up with evidence. The statement is precisely that, bullshit.
If you mean the world is divided into frequentists and Bayesians, you're right. I think most people who throw around the Drake Equation are frequentists.
On this one, I'm neither. There is no way to put a number on it.
It seems to have been pretty successful at its intended purpose:
The equation was formulated in 1961 not for purposes of quantifying the number of civilizations, but as a way to stimulate scientific dialogue at the first scientific meeting on the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI)
Even today, it’s not the end all be all tool but there are still serious papers being published that refer to it.
That said, there probably are intelligent civilizations somewhere in the universe, but we have that pesky problem of distance and the speed of light, as you said. People like to imagine that eventually civilizations find a way around it, but in all likelihood they don't.