Much of the chirpy nonsense you hear regarding extratesticular life is a direct result of the Drake Equation, and SETI seems to have bought into it hook, line, and stinker.
The problem with the Drake Equation is that it's junk science, has no scientific merit whatsoever, and has a basis based in belief, not science.
This is not my opinion. It's not a matter of disagreeing with the hypothesis. And it's certainly no secret. For fifty years scientists and mathematicians have been pointing out the flawed reasoning behind the claim(s).
As biologists have been pointing out since the 1950's, only biologists have the knowledge necessary for making predictions about the existence of Life out there, and their response from the beginning has been unanimous and unequivocal: a) there's probably nothing out there, and b) even if there were, we have no way of finding it, and never will.
Now, I'm not going to reiterate the mountains of studies debunking the Drake Equation, and I'm not going to waste time posting the same old Life-out-there debunking information that has been out there in the public domain since the 1950's. I've been doing that for years, and long ago got tired of the fact that it falls on deaf ears.
What I am going to do is mention an observation, namely that SETI is tainted by people who believe in stuff.
When reading the comments of true believers, this is something you come across all the time: talk about believing in aliens, in extratesticular Life, and a good many of the people in question are also nutters who litter every forum dealing with the question of extratesticular Life with comments about Illuminati, lizard people, you name it.
Any reasonable person will conclude that this has nothing whatever to do with science, and because so many nutters align themselves with SETI, and because SETI does little or nothing to dissuade them, its very existence becomes suspect.
SETI must divest itself of the Drake Equation, which is based on plausible-sounding baloney. It must also temper comments made by non-biologists who, despite being very well-educated, are not experts in this particular field, and should refrain from making sweeping statements regarding extratesticular Life that are based, not on science, but on unfounded, unproven, untested opinion.
Edited by gsmonks, 13 September 2016 - 07:31 PM.