<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Big Idea: Seth Shostak</title>
	<atom:link href="http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/</link>
	<description>WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON OUR HUMILITY</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:59:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: coolstar</title>
		<link>http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/#comment-151473</link>
		<dc:creator>coolstar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:36:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7737#comment-151473</guid>
		<description>Or perhaps Eric is just using the expression &quot;order of magnitude&quot; the way a computer scientist friend once used it with me: to mean factors of 2 (!), rather the more commonly used factors of 10.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or perhaps Eric is just using the expression &#8220;order of magnitude&#8221; the way a computer scientist friend once used it with me: to mean factors of 2 (!), rather the more commonly used factors of 10.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: coolstar</title>
		<link>http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/#comment-151470</link>
		<dc:creator>coolstar</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 02:14:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7737#comment-151470</guid>
		<description>Eric has made some very good points here, even if he is confused about the difference between a billion and a trillion: in american usage 1 billion = 1*10E9 and
1 trillion = 1*10E12.  His points are well known and widely debated in the astrobiology community.  People should look up the book &quot;Rare Earth&quot; by Peter Ward, professor of geological science at the University of Washington, and Donald Brownlee, professor of astronomy there.  They make the same points as Eric, backed up by detailed science.
   The fact that Shostak used the word &quot;miracle&quot;, knowing full well that people like Ward and Brownlee disagree with him, I find intellectually dishonest (or just plain mean).  The first is obviously the worst mistake a scientist can make.   Ward and Brownlee, are as good at science as Shostak (and that&#039;s being a little charitable), as are others who disagree with him and they&#039;re just as cognizant of the relevant data.
    I say all of this even though I *disagree* with Ward and Brownlee and agree more with Shostak.  Clearly, there can as yet be no winner in this debate.  I always knew there was something about Shostak that just rubbed me the wrong way, and this clarifies that feeling.
     BTW, planetary scientist and SF writer David Brin has written perhaps the definitive work so far about the Fermi Paradox (non-fiction!).  I think it&#039;s available from his website but may be wrong.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric has made some very good points here, even if he is confused about the difference between a billion and a trillion: in american usage 1 billion = 1*10E9 and<br />
1 trillion = 1*10E12.  His points are well known and widely debated in the astrobiology community.  People should look up the book &#8220;Rare Earth&#8221; by Peter Ward, professor of geological science at the University of Washington, and Donald Brownlee, professor of astronomy there.  They make the same points as Eric, backed up by detailed science.<br />
   The fact that Shostak used the word &#8220;miracle&#8221;, knowing full well that people like Ward and Brownlee disagree with him, I find intellectually dishonest (or just plain mean).  The first is obviously the worst mistake a scientist can make.   Ward and Brownlee, are as good at science as Shostak (and that&#8217;s being a little charitable), as are others who disagree with him and they&#8217;re just as cognizant of the relevant data.<br />
    I say all of this even though I *disagree* with Ward and Brownlee and agree more with Shostak.  Clearly, there can as yet be no winner in this debate.  I always knew there was something about Shostak that just rubbed me the wrong way, and this clarifies that feeling.<br />
     BTW, planetary scientist and SF writer David Brin has written perhaps the definitive work so far about the Fermi Paradox (non-fiction!).  I think it&#8217;s available from his website but may be wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/#comment-151426</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7737#comment-151426</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;One might extend that to say that with 635 billion possibilities out there, hands just like that one must be common and this hand can’t possibly be unique because it’s so unlikely to be dealt a unique hand.&lt;/i&gt;

Dammit!  I don&#039;t think I finished my thought there!  What I meant to say is that the above conclusion--that your hand is common--would be just as absurd as concluding that you hadn&#039;t been dealt the hand at all.

Several trillion is several orders of magnitude above 635 billion, but I think the point is still valid whether we&#039;re talking 1/635*10^9, 1/10^12, or 1/2 (&quot;I had a fifty percent chance of getting this result, therefore I&#039;m not sure if I did or didn&#039;t!&quot;).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>One might extend that to say that with 635 billion possibilities out there, hands just like that one must be common and this hand can’t possibly be unique because it’s so unlikely to be dealt a unique hand.</i></p>
<p>Dammit!  I don&#8217;t think I finished my thought there!  What I meant to say is that the above conclusion&#8211;that your hand is common&#8211;would be just as absurd as concluding that you hadn&#8217;t been dealt the hand at all.</p>
<p>Several trillion is several orders of magnitude above 635 billion, but I think the point is still valid whether we&#8217;re talking 1/635*10^9, 1/10^12, or 1/2 (&#8220;I had a fifty percent chance of getting this result, therefore I&#8217;m not sure if I did or didn&#8217;t!&#8221;).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/#comment-151425</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:54:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7737#comment-151425</guid>
		<description>Rick: there&#039;s a limit to the meaningfulness of a trillion.  Yes, it&#039;s incomprehensibly huge.  And the gut instinct when you see a number like that is to think in comprehensible terms: &quot;If there&#039;s a one-hundredth of a percent chance of life evolving, then there must be 100,000,000 lifeforms out there!&quot;  Because 1/100th of one percent seems very small, but still imaginable (and if I accidentally omitted a trio of zeroes, I hope you&#039;ll forgive me, correct it in your brain, and still see where I&#039;m trying to go even if you still disagree with me).

The problem isn&#039;t with the trillion, it&#039;s with the 1/100th of a percent or even 1/1000th of a percent or 50%; we don&#039;t know if the chance of an intelligent civilization evolving and inventing radio is literally one-in-a-trillion or one-in-three, except to say that if it&#039;s one-in-three it seems very quiet out there.  One-in-a-trillion seems hard to believe, but there&#039;s no &lt;i&gt;objective&lt;/i&gt; reason for that, merely that it intuitively seems long-odds--what Dr. Shostak  basically called &quot;miraculous&quot;--to think they&#039;re that low.

There&#039;s a great John Allen Paulos quote--I wish I could find the exact line right now--about how the odds of getting dealt any specific Bridge hand, a combination of 13 specific-but-randomly-dealt cards, is one in 635 billion; and yet it would be absurd for somebody to pick up a hand of cards, look at it, compute the math and decide that he couldn&#039;t possibly have been dealt that hand or that the hand must have been choice-picked for him.  One might extend that to say that with 635 billion possibilities out there, hands just like that one must be common and this hand can&#039;t possibly be unique because it&#039;s so unlikely to be dealt a unique hand.  &lt;i&gt;If&lt;/i&gt; we&#039;re alone in the universe, it&#039;s not a miracle, and if we&#039;re &lt;i&gt;not&lt;/i&gt; alone, it&#039;s not an expected outcome of the size of the galaxy or number of galaxies out there.  The probability or improbability of an event that&#039;s already occurred is basically meaningless.

I hope we&#039;re not alone.  Meanwhile, what&#039;s your favorite resolution for the Fermi Paradox?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick: there&#8217;s a limit to the meaningfulness of a trillion.  Yes, it&#8217;s incomprehensibly huge.  And the gut instinct when you see a number like that is to think in comprehensible terms: &#8220;If there&#8217;s a one-hundredth of a percent chance of life evolving, then there must be 100,000,000 lifeforms out there!&#8221;  Because 1/100th of one percent seems very small, but still imaginable (and if I accidentally omitted a trio of zeroes, I hope you&#8217;ll forgive me, correct it in your brain, and still see where I&#8217;m trying to go even if you still disagree with me).</p>
<p>The problem isn&#8217;t with the trillion, it&#8217;s with the 1/100th of a percent or even 1/1000th of a percent or 50%; we don&#8217;t know if the chance of an intelligent civilization evolving and inventing radio is literally one-in-a-trillion or one-in-three, except to say that if it&#8217;s one-in-three it seems very quiet out there.  One-in-a-trillion seems hard to believe, but there&#8217;s no <i>objective</i> reason for that, merely that it intuitively seems long-odds&#8211;what Dr. Shostak  basically called &#8220;miraculous&#8221;&#8211;to think they&#8217;re that low.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a great John Allen Paulos quote&#8211;I wish I could find the exact line right now&#8211;about how the odds of getting dealt any specific Bridge hand, a combination of 13 specific-but-randomly-dealt cards, is one in 635 billion; and yet it would be absurd for somebody to pick up a hand of cards, look at it, compute the math and decide that he couldn&#8217;t possibly have been dealt that hand or that the hand must have been choice-picked for him.  One might extend that to say that with 635 billion possibilities out there, hands just like that one must be common and this hand can&#8217;t possibly be unique because it&#8217;s so unlikely to be dealt a unique hand.  <i>If</i> we&#8217;re alone in the universe, it&#8217;s not a miracle, and if we&#8217;re <i>not</i> alone, it&#8217;s not an expected outcome of the size of the galaxy or number of galaxies out there.  The probability or improbability of an event that&#8217;s already occurred is basically meaningless.</p>
<p>I hope we&#8217;re not alone.  Meanwhile, what&#8217;s your favorite resolution for the Fermi Paradox?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Liane Merciel</title>
		<link>http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/#comment-151424</link>
		<dc:creator>Liane Merciel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 14:51:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7737#comment-151424</guid>
		<description>I must confess this is a topic I&#039;ve never given any thought -- I&#039;ve just never been that curious about aliens -- but this was a really interesting piece, and made me wonder about a new subject. Thanks for running it, and thanks to Seth Shostak for writing the piece. I&#039;ll keep an eye out for the book; it really does sound fascinating.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must confess this is a topic I&#8217;ve never given any thought &#8212; I&#8217;ve just never been that curious about aliens &#8212; but this was a really interesting piece, and made me wonder about a new subject. Thanks for running it, and thanks to Seth Shostak for writing the piece. I&#8217;ll keep an eye out for the book; it really does sound fascinating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mark Maranta</title>
		<link>http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/#comment-151419</link>
		<dc:creator>Mark Maranta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:07:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7737#comment-151419</guid>
		<description>Well, if intelligent aliens are as bureaucratic as Terrans, you can forget physics and simply examine the budget we allocate to NASA and SETI and that figure will define the chances of encountering alien life.

Are they out there? Definitely. But can we afford to meet?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, if intelligent aliens are as bureaucratic as Terrans, you can forget physics and simply examine the budget we allocate to NASA and SETI and that figure will define the chances of encountering alien life.</p>
<p>Are they out there? Definitely. But can we afford to meet?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: rick</title>
		<link>http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/#comment-151402</link>
		<dc:creator>rick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:13:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7737#comment-151402</guid>
		<description>Eric, 

Again, I don&#039;t think you&#039;re considering just how BIG a trillion is. I also see a lot of &quot;may&quot; in your argument and of course if you stack the negative assumptions high enough then yes, being alone is a case that can be made. As you say later, we don&#039;t have much data, but it&#039;s unlikely that all of the assumptions line up on the extreme negative side (and the opposite is true of course).

Re the Copernican principle  - it&#039;s very unlikely we&#039;re in the middle. It&#039;s FAR more likely we&#039;re at the very early edge of civilizations. Again, if we look  at a technological civilization as having a 50 or 100,000 year lifespan, we&#039;re 5-10% of the way in. If such civilizations last much longer were a very very small way into the lifespan of the typical civilization. 

Likewise, Xopher, it&#039;s unlikely there&#039;s much life at the core of the galaxy due to the environment there. Might someone drop by? perhaps. After all, we send people into remote forests and find Neolithic tribes... Again, if a civilization is hundreds of thousands of years old, it&#039;s FAR more advanced than we. Even if no technique for things like FTL is ever found and our basic understanding of physical laws is correct, that&#039;s a very very long time.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric, </p>
<p>Again, I don&#8217;t think you&#8217;re considering just how BIG a trillion is. I also see a lot of &#8220;may&#8221; in your argument and of course if you stack the negative assumptions high enough then yes, being alone is a case that can be made. As you say later, we don&#8217;t have much data, but it&#8217;s unlikely that all of the assumptions line up on the extreme negative side (and the opposite is true of course).</p>
<p>Re the Copernican principle  &#8211; it&#8217;s very unlikely we&#8217;re in the middle. It&#8217;s FAR more likely we&#8217;re at the very early edge of civilizations. Again, if we look  at a technological civilization as having a 50 or 100,000 year lifespan, we&#8217;re 5-10% of the way in. If such civilizations last much longer were a very very small way into the lifespan of the typical civilization. </p>
<p>Likewise, Xopher, it&#8217;s unlikely there&#8217;s much life at the core of the galaxy due to the environment there. Might someone drop by? perhaps. After all, we send people into remote forests and find Neolithic tribes&#8230; Again, if a civilization is hundreds of thousands of years old, it&#8217;s FAR more advanced than we. Even if no technique for things like FTL is ever found and our basic understanding of physical laws is correct, that&#8217;s a very very long time.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Eric</title>
		<link>http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/#comment-151384</link>
		<dc:creator>Eric</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:58:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7737#comment-151384</guid>
		<description>Xopher: no, I meant that the Copernican Principle is often construed to mean that we&#039;re somewhere in the middle in terms of technological or cultural development, as well as where we happen to be biologically or how our planet stands compared to other life-sustaining planets or where Sol is stellar-evolution-wise--but you&#039;re right that I phrased that pretty poorly.

The problem is that while the Copernican Principle is a useful way of giving ourselves a kick in the pants and enforcing modesty, it also has no objective basis.  That is, we should continue to remind ourselves we probably aren&#039;t special, in spite of the fact that we are (as far as we know) unique and therefore very special.

It&#039;s often taken for granted in conversations about extraterrestrial life that there &lt;i&gt;must&lt;/i&gt; be civilizations more advanced than we are because there are planets and stars that have had more time to produce such civilizations and we are, per the CP, probably not special.  Only, see, there&#039;s not actually anything to back up that assumption.  Someone has to be first and most advanced, and until we meet somebody else, it appears that &lt;i&gt;we&lt;/i&gt; are, however improbable that may seem.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Xopher: no, I meant that the Copernican Principle is often construed to mean that we&#8217;re somewhere in the middle in terms of technological or cultural development, as well as where we happen to be biologically or how our planet stands compared to other life-sustaining planets or where Sol is stellar-evolution-wise&#8211;but you&#8217;re right that I phrased that pretty poorly.</p>
<p>The problem is that while the Copernican Principle is a useful way of giving ourselves a kick in the pants and enforcing modesty, it also has no objective basis.  That is, we should continue to remind ourselves we probably aren&#8217;t special, in spite of the fact that we are (as far as we know) unique and therefore very special.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s often taken for granted in conversations about extraterrestrial life that there <i>must</i> be civilizations more advanced than we are because there are planets and stars that have had more time to produce such civilizations and we are, per the CP, probably not special.  Only, see, there&#8217;s not actually anything to back up that assumption.  Someone has to be first and most advanced, and until we meet somebody else, it appears that <i>we</i> are, however improbable that may seem.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Lim</title>
		<link>http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/#comment-151370</link>
		<dc:creator>David Lim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:16:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7737#comment-151370</guid>
		<description>Just wanted to say how much I love The Big Idea. I haven&#039;t bothered reading any Science Fiction books in a long time, so this column is a godsend to me. Granted, because I&#039;m living in Australia these books are sometimes hard to find, but always worth the read. Thanks for another great recommendation!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just wanted to say how much I love The Big Idea. I haven&#8217;t bothered reading any Science Fiction books in a long time, so this column is a godsend to me. Granted, because I&#8217;m living in Australia these books are sometimes hard to find, but always worth the read. Thanks for another great recommendation!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Xopher</title>
		<link>http://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/06/18/the-big-idea-seth-shostak/#comment-151366</link>
		<dc:creator>Xopher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:12:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://whatever.scalzi.com/?p=7737#comment-151366</guid>
		<description>Oh, I fully intend to get the book and find out, Steve!  Fascinating Big Idea.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, I fully intend to get the book and find out, Steve!  Fascinating Big Idea.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
