Talk:Fermi paradox/Archive 2

message: The section on SETI had to be cleaned up. I have no qualms about that. But the SETI programs need to be treated equally. Either the paragraphs there about individual programs should be taken out, the ones that are reduced to WikiLinks need to be expanded, or the individual program points need to be taken out entirely and a general history of SETI search programs written.
Again, the edit changes the meaning. As it reads now, it looks like those search programs which by accident of author time and attention got a brief paragraph look like they have special status, and special mention - when the original layout treated all programs equally. 
Ease of editing has warped the impression given the reader: these are important... and these over here are just tacked on for the hell of it.
Beowulf314159 21:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely. This section needs more work and a lot more shortening up. At least the current version doesn't specifically ask for contributions that would make it longer. KarlBunker 23:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  user:KarlBunker Already agreed with us ,and truncated it.--Procrastinating@talk2me 23:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The SETI rewrite 

message: Is it that the Arecibo message was a narrow band frequency - or a focused radio beam at a particular target - i.e. energy not dissapated omnidirectionally, but focused at a specific target? The two terms are not the same. - Beowulf314159 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrowband Question 

message: I'd like to propose that this section be deleted. The first paragraph is a recap that really says nothing about the article. The second paragraph mentions Occam's razor, which would be interesting if it were at all convincing that Occam's razor actually applies the way the writer says it applies, or applies in any way at all to the debate. . (Does it require fewer assumptions or more assumptions to theorize that humans are the only intelligent life in the galaxy?) And the third paragraph does another recap and attempts to close on a poetically-written note, but it badly and confusingly written. Comments invited. KarlBunker 15:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The conclusion section hasn't been touched in a long time, and the article has evolved to the point where there isn't much of a connection anymore. I has always thought that the conclusion would need to be rewritten at some point, but upon further reflections, a summary conclusion is not usually part of an encyclopedia article. I think it could be safely removed. - Beowulf314159 16:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Way too long, repititious, lots of non-encyclopedic stuff. It's a summary of the essay-type and it doesn't really belong.   freshgavin TALK    05:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Conclusion" section 

message: Is there anything new in this addition that should be kept? To me it seems a rehashing of previous points: cultures only broadcast radio signals for a brief time because their technology advances past radio, we're not looking for the right signals, with overtones of the "Zoo hypothesis" with need to pass some sort of "technological or ethical threshold" for contact. Seems to have all been done before. What do you think: can/should this be removed again? - Beowulf314159 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it's really redundant and adds nothing new. I think it should be deleted. KarlBunker 23:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur ,this article is getting TOO BIG ,the entire section for "PRO: scale" for exmaple does the same repeatition.--Procrastinating@talk2me 18:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is it supposedly repeating? If it'self, then it can be pared down and tightened, just as long as the argument it'self doesn't get cut out. - Beowulf314159 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW - the "point" you are agreeing with, wasn't made. No one said "hey! The article is too big!" We were talking about a specific section which was added "out of the blue", and has been removed. The article size has been stable now for a couple of weeks. It's not "getting" anything. - Beowulf314159 18:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   technological restraints? 

message: Just out of curiosity, can the claim that "Judeo/Christian/Islamic religious texts in particular contain at least the implication that "man" is unique in the universe". Having been raised Juedo-Christian, I don't recall any such doctrine about man being unique. Heck, you might even check out John 10:16-18 "And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold...". I do not want to touch off a religious debate here! I'm just wondering if this claim can be substantiated. - Beowulf314159 12:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, C.S. Lewis once wrote a tale about Christian martians, i'm not sure if that helps... 138.237.165.140 07:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  God created... 

message: This article alludes to 30 galactic orbits being approximately hot long "higher life" has been on earth (in the 'Rare Earth' hyptothesis section). But since a galactic orbit lasts about 223 million years, 30 orbits would be older than the Earth itself, would it not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.23.70.135 (talk • contribs) .
:The statement that "higher life" has been around for 30 galactic orbits is wrong, and I've removed it. Now the article just mentions the Earth's fortuitous position between galactic arms. KarlBunker 14:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Galactic Orbit?

message: Latest edit says this
:In terms of the Fermi Paradox, the Anthropic Principle also connects with ideas of a multiverse in which all possible universes exist. In this view, one technologically capable species arising in a universe decreases the probability of another arising [citation needed]. We exist in a universe where life is possible and in which no technological species has arisen close enough to affect our development.[citation needed]
Can anyone comment on this? I've never heard anything in the multi-world hypothesis that says anything like this? Can anyone support this, or is this just noise? - Vedexent 23:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The multiverse? 

message: Is there any reason, practically every word used for emphasis has to be italicized? At least for my reading of the page, it's really bloody annoying. Marskell 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could let it be, or fix it, or just complain about it - although if you are going to just do the third, that is bloody annoying as well. - 65.94.107.160 21:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work on removing all those italics, Marskell. I agree that the were more than a little excessive. KarlBunker 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italics 

message: Please refrain from removing a point or argument unless a) you can refute it, or b) You ask for citation and no one else can back it up after a "reasonable time" (couple of days?). Ripping out point that aren't "immediately obvious" to you, because they are not immediately obvious to you is hardly fair.
I am referring mostly to the point about the prescence of the moon relieving the earth from some of the asteriodal impacts it would otherwise suffer. I have heard the argument several places - I'll try and dig up a reference, and if I can't, I'll take it out because of that. - Vedexent 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK Ved, no need to shout. WP:CITE: "Disputed edits can be removed immediately and placed on the talk page for discussion..." Wiki-policy is, broadly, that you may remove uncited info until a cite is provided. By all means a couple of days, if you'd like. I wait to be corrected. Marskell 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also researched this point before I removed it. Not only could I not find any reference, but according my understanding of the science involved, it didn't make sense. I should have made a note to that effect here when I removed it. KarlBunker 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I'll only add this: "intuitive science" is a bad way to go about things and I suppose I was guilty in my (partial) revert. Intuitively, I think extra mass = extra impacts. Yes, any crater on the moon might have been an Earth impact, but how many bodies that wouldn't have done so otherwise, entered the Earth-Moon system because of the Moon's mass? ...0.074, according to our mass comparison. "Insignificant!"--or maybe not. That's why we have scientists. Per Karl and my earlier point, I have never encountered this idea and I don't know why Rare Earth doesn't mention it, given that every conceivable stat rendering the Earth unique is presented in the book. Anyhow, at least the article is getting some attention. Marskell 21:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: FWIW, here's my understanding of the science: The moon can protect the earth from collisions in two ways: The moon can just happen to be in the path of an incoming asteroid/meteor, or the moon can sweep up asteroid/meteor debris that is in orbit around the earth, preventing the debris from spiraling in and hitting the earth. The first is (scientifically speaking) a one-in-a-bazillion chance. The second isn't an ongoing problem because such a debris ring has to come from somewhere, like leftovers from the formation of the earth, or the blasted-out remains of a massive collision to the earth (such as the one that created the moon). As to all the craters on the moon, they're there because the moon has no atmosphere to burn up incoming meteors and no weather or tectonics to erase craters once they form. If the earth didn't have those things, it would be as pock-marked as the moon. KarlBunker 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop removing points 

message: One of the complaints in the FARC nomination about citations is that the external refs are basiclly HTML-linked numbers. No way to tell what they are - or if they still exist. I've changed one of the Refs into the cite.php format, and added the appropriate section to the page (Footnotes). Perhaps new cites added to the page should use this format? - Vedexent 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the cites should use this or one of the other acceptable formats. Let's find the cites first. The ref system can be done in bulk later--though of course it never hurts to do it as you find it. Marskell 09:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Another possibly problematic citation style that seems to occur throught the article is: "this is a point (see really neat book)". I don't know if this is a problem in all cases, or even at all. Opinions? - Vedexent 10:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, you need a balance in referencing sci-fi. By all means do so if it's right on-topic, but I think this page over does it. Or perhaps the repeated sci-fi refs make the lack of sci-fact refs more glaring... Marskell 10:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Format 

message: * Can we drop the SETI search descriptions and simply link to the relevant sub-sections on the SETI page itself? - Probably. The SETI program descriptions can probably be taken out - or at least sumamrized into a single paraphraph, and linked into SETI. I'd make sure that points are actually in the SETI article before removing them, though. Maybe add them to the SETI article. - Vedexent
I looked at the SETI page and everything is there, in greater detail. I think we can turn all of these into bullet point links with perhaps a single sentence descriptor. Given that "Assumptions" above also uses bullets, the section may look over-bulleted. Perhaps then we should first turn the assumptions into prose. Marskell 15:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually - I don't even think the individual programs need to be bullet pointed. If they are there in the SETI article all those individual program description sections could probably be collapsed into "(see SETI for descriptions of individual searchs)". The details of the searchs aren't really central to the Fermi Paradox - and as long as as link is there for interested readers, the "information is preserved" - Vedexent 15:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I've made the full edit. Sure, one more summary paragraph would be fine. Four K just like that, incidentally. Marskell 15:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SETI 

message: Ok - I am not reverting other people's edits! I noticed something weird - when I "view changes" and someone has edited since I started (edit collision), I see their changes as well. I hit "save" and rather than getting the "collision warning", it just saves my version over top of theirs. My apologies - I'm not trying to undo edits occuring at the same time. - Vedexent 16:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that. We've been editing at the same time and I haven't gotten a single conflict. Marskell 16:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki glitch? 

message: I had another thought in looking at how the changes have unfolded today. We have a full page at Rare Earth hypothesis. Do we need the bullet points under the Rare Earth header here? As with SETI, we could just list the principal points in a sentence and direct people to the Rare Earth page. Marskell 14:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems logical - moves the "burden of citation/proof" elsewhere as well ;) - Vedexent 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: As with SETI, so with Rare Earth

message: More than ten days since the FARC nom which has generated comments but little actual voting. So, IMO we have:
* Greatly improved intro sections. Shorter but actually more info with appropriate links where info has been removed.
* A generally improved "Trying to resolve the paradox empirically" section. Some extra citing and copy editing still needed but it's better.
* A still iffy "Trying to resolve the paradox theoretically" section. Long, over-bulleted and still largely uncited. There's stuff here that's interesting ("For example, if an alien life form had a metabolic rate far slower than our own (such as uttering one word every 12 hours or so, having a life span of millions of years") but ought to be removed if not sourced.
The writing is still somewhat patchy in general as some parts have been ce'ed in one direction and some haven't but this can be taken care. If I were voting at FARC right now I'd probably Abstain. Thoughts on last section? Marskell 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status 

message: OK, then. No takers on last comment. In looking at this again, I think it redundant to split What we might look for and How we look in section three. Karl said somewhere along the line that we shouldn't "mash" distinct sections together. This is certainly a valid concern, but where things can logically be joined they should be to avoid repetition and reduce size. In this case, it would be fairly complicated merger of sections. Perhaps take it to a sub-page and try it out there. Again, any thoughts anyone? Marskell 11:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, hey everbody. I went ahead and did this. In looking at it now, "What we have found" is also just repetition except for the WOW signal bit. Think I might as well throw that in too. Marskell 12:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What we might look for, How we look

message: Well, I'm going to continue to talking to the void here...
----
The last section as it stands:
They do exist, but...
...we cannot communicate for the technical reason that...
* ...we are too far apart in space to communicate.
* ...we are too far apart in time to communicate.
* ...it is too expensive to spread physically throughout the galaxy.
* ...we have not been searching long enough
...most people have yet to see them, even though are here on Earth, because...
* ...they are cloaking themselves from us.
* ...we refuse to see the evidence.
...civilizations only broadcast detectable radio signals for a brief period of time...
* ...because of evolving technology.
* ...because of depleted energy resources.
* ...they choose not to communicate, or are too alien.
...Earth is purposely isolated (The zoo hypothesis).
...they have experienced a technological singularity.
...but we do not understand them, even though they are communicating, because...
* ...we are not listening properly.
* ...we misunderstand their attempts, or we dismiss the evidence.'''
----
Suggested last section:
They do exist, but
...we cannot communicate due to problems of scale.
* ...We are too far apart in space to communicate.
* ...We are too far apart in time to communicate
* ...It is too expensive to spread physically through the galaxy
* ...We have not been searching long enough
...we cannot communicate for technical reasons.
* ...We are not listening properly
* ...Civilizations only broadcast detectable radio signals for a brief period of time
* ...They have experienced a technological singularity
...they choose not to communicate
* ...The Earth is purposely isolated (the zoo hypothesis)
* ...They are too alien
...they are here and we don’t know it.
* ...They are cloaking themselves from us.
* ...We refuse to see the evidence
----
What's done/what this tries to accomplish:
* Those listed as technical reasons now are not specifically technical and better described as problems of scale.
* Those that are technical reasons will be described as such and grouped together. "Technological singularity" and "only communicate for a brief time" will be demoted to level four bold and placed in this section. "Because of evolving technology" and "because of depleted energy resources" get merged into the latter.
* They choose not to communicate is promoted to level three as I think it something people might browse for.
* The last section standing now, "but we do not understand them, even though they are communicating, because", is to be removed as redundant. "We are not listening properly" gets moved to a technical problem. "We misunderstand their attempts, or we refuse to see the evidence" is broken up and merged into "they are too alien" and "we refuse to see the evidence."
* The level four bolds will no longer take the ... at the beginning as it makes it unweildly in formulating headlines. 
Whew. Thoughts? Marskell 16:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganizing last section 

message: The current issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine (put out by CSICOP) has a series of 4 articles on SETI. I recommend it highly to editors of this article. The articles aren't at all "skeptical" in the sense of "aw, c'mon, there's no such thing as aliens". Rather, the first article takes a stance of "we've been looking for a long time and found nothing; maybe we need to lower our expectations," and the following 3 articles are largely rebuttals to this viewpoint. One quote I particularly liked (paraphrasing): 
:The Drake equation shouldn't be used as if it had predictive value. It is only of use as a way to organize our ignorance, so we can have a rational discussion.
KarlBunker 18:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's always unfortunate that the best articles are often not free... Assuming that some won't get around to reading this for that reason, maybe you could come up with some cites Karl if the articles are on topic with specific things here. Marskell 10:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More sources from Astrobio.net  Marskell 18:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skeptical Inquirer issue 

message: I hope user Kaiser didn't decide to leave because of talk responses here. I looked at his sandbox and, having thought some myself, I think there are things that can be done to both reduce this and make it more cogent:
* Merging the "argument by scale" and "lack of evidence" into "Basis of the paradox." I think this will flow naturally and is in keeping with Kaiser's sense of putting things where they belong. If we have a "Basis of..." then Scale and Lack of evidence belong within it.
* Having a "Radio Transmissions"/SETI section close to what Kaiser suggests. Where it seems more appropriate, move info to "not listening properly". The SETI page does cover a lot of this--it can be reduced.
* Dropping "Anthropic principle" as its own heading. It makes more sense to note the Anthropic principle under Rare Earth and later under "God created humans alone", rather than devoting a section to it.
Other tweaks, of course, could be done. Probably no one will respond and I'll just do this a few days from now. But, as always, opinions welcomed. Marskell 22:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I'm still lurking, just pretty busy.  I thank you for your response(s).  I'm a little gunshy, given my bad track record at getting my edits through, and also my style of editing tends toward the Major end of the scale.  Maybe I'll try to rein myself in and  work on the SETI section & we can see how it goes.  Kaisershatner 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I went and added some of the removed info back to "not listening properly" under "...we cannot communicate for technical reasons." It's been trimmed and compressed though, and we're still dropping a couple of K. If you look at what's been done I think this works well. Marskell 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First point now done too. This may be a function of me working on it and naturally approving of my own edits, but I actually think this page is beginning to tighten up... Marskell 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another comment into the void... 

message: I think the last area that seems over-long is devoting two longish sections to the Alien artifacts. The bit at the very end about they're already being here is also a bit iffy without sources. Beyond that, I think we need a few more sources, which have already rapidly expanded, some tidying, and it seems pretty good to go. Marskell 11:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last things