The Law of Parsimony Supports the Existence of Intelligent Extraterrestrials

I will rebut the proposition with three arguments: 1. The Law of Parsimony is not a Law, therefore it cannot be used as a basis of a proof. 2. Complex crop circles are most easily and best explained as hoaxes. 3. Drake's Equation is indefinite and not derived from Parsimony. 1. The Law of Parsimony is not a law. "For every complex problem there is a simple solution, and it is wrong." -- H.L. Mencken Let's consider some questions: Why does the stock market go up and down? Why does it rain? Why did Hurricane Katrina strike New Orleans? The true answers to these questions are enormously complex. The stock market depends upon many interacting factors. The weather depends upon complex interactions of terrain, the atmosphere, and the sun. The paths of hurricanes are at best approximately predictable, even with the latest computers and models. There are much simpler explanations: a stock market god, a weather god, and a hurricane god. So, does the Law of Parsimony demand that we accept the assortment of gods over the complexity of the real world? I claim that there is nothing in Parsimony that is so compelling. One problem is that it is often difficult to tell what is simpler. Extraterrestrials, like gods, are apparently simple, because they are expressed in one or two words, but they comprise enormous hidden complexity. How do they overcome speed-of-light limitations? Why do they leave so much consequential evidence, but so little direct evidence? If they want to communicate, why would they use crop circles rather than, say, an interview of the evening news? There may be explanations, but each one adds to the complexity of an extraterrestrial explanation, and there hundreds more of such questions. The Law of Parsimony is actually a useful guide only in very limited circumstances. For example, if an event can be explained with four parameters rather than five parameters, the four parameter explanation will be preferred. Use of parsimony depends upon some sort of apples and apples comparison. For example, parsimony makes the explanation of the motion of the planets as simple ellipses preferred to a theory of orbs upon orbs, but the problem to be solved is highly constrained. Even in those circumstances, it is no more than a guideline. Using the Law of Parsimony to explain events otherwise unexplained is no better than using gods to explain the unexplained. In fact, gods are even more parsimonious an explanation. Gods don't need space ships that travel faster than light. 2. Complex crop circles are all hoaxes. There is some evidence that simple round crop circles can be caused by the weather, but all complex ones are hoaxes. The methods were explained by one of the original perpetrators. The crops are pushed down by stepping on a four-foot board pulled up by ropes on each end. Circles are defined with a wire attached to a stake. Straight lines are walked using a wire sighting device attached to a hat. The original perpetrator was forced to come clean when his wife started to suspect he was sneaking out at night for purposes other than stomping down crops. Complex crop circle patterns become valuable tourist attractions, so farmers sometimes aid in there construction. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Among the most famous hoaxers are the British team of Doug Bower and Dave Chorley, known as "Doug and Dave." In 1991, the duo came out and announced that they had made hundreds of crop circles since 1978. To prove that they were responsible, they filmed themselves for the BBC making a circle with a rope-and-plank contraption in a Wiltshire field (see the next section for information on making a crop circle). "Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) says that crop circles have all the hallmarks of hoaxes: They are concentrated primarily in southern England; they've become more elaborate over the years (indicating that hoaxers are getting better at their craft); and their creators never allow themselves to be seen." http://science.howstuffworks.com... With the simple techniques for making straight lines and circles, and pattern can be constructed that could be equivalently done on paper with ruler and compass. The includes constructing perpendiculars and parallels, and bisecting angles. In addition, a tape measure can be used to measure lengths and a compass to measure angles. That enables virtually any construction. Given that any crop circle pattern can be constructed by humans, that is a simpler explanation than demanding that ET do the job. 3. Drake's Equation is indefinite and not Parsimonious Drake's Equation is an interesting basis for computing the probability of intelligent extraterrestrials. However, the equation is posed with many unknown parameters. http://en.wikipedia.org... We have fairly good ideas of numbers of galaxies and stars, but things like the probability of intelligent life developing from simple life and the probability of intelligent life surviving the risks of extinction are unknown. Perhaps future studies will provide solid estimates, but as of now it is pure speculation. Therefore Drake's Equation provides nothing beyond speculation. Using optimistic guesses for the parameters in Drakes Equation, there might be ten intelligent civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy, per the article cited above. The Milky Way is about 100,000 light years in diameter. http://en.wikipedia.org... That means we optimistically expect the nearest ET civilization to be about 15,000 light years distant. Drake's Equation says nothing about the overcoming the problem of traveling faster than the speed of light. For extraterrestrials to make crop circles, they must travel here to do so. That now seems impossible, so supposing that can be overcome assumes a far more complex technology than guys with boards stomping around in farmers fields. Pro's case does not clearly state whether it is crop circles in conjunction with Drakes Equation that is supposed to imply intelligent life, or whether Drake's Equation by itself is supposed to be an independent reference to the Law of Parsimony. Parsimony only operates to distinguish two alternatives. There is no alternative formulation to Drakes equation, so I assume Pro is not using the Equation itself as if derived from parsimony. There is, of course, the alternative to Drake's Equation that there is no other intelligent life, because God did not make any other. Is the zero alternative more parsimonious? I argue in (1) above, that it is not, but it would seem by Pro's line of thought it would be. The resolution is negated.