4 ms·
Sure, but we might want try to at least constrain the parameters with better (verifiable!) bounds and perhaps even modify the equation occasionally when we lear
by lomnakkus 11y ago
Sure, but we might want try to at least constrain the parameters with better (verifiable!) bounds and perhaps even modify the equation occasionally when we learn more -- as we have done (learn, that is) since it was proposed. I should make clear that I wasn't disagreeing with mercurialshark, per se.
As I said: It's certainly a good thing to think about these things, but... :)
EDIT: Assuming it generally agrees with observed facts, a good sign for any scientific theory is how much it constrains the explanation/solution space. (Paraphrased, obviously. For the life of me I cannot remember who said this. Perhaps David Deutsch?) I don't think the Drake Equation adequately constrains the solution/explanation space.
- noselasd 11y agoWe do constrain the Drake equation when we know more. It's just that we don't know a lot. We have come to know the number of stars around pretty well - at least in our galaxy. Thanks to Kepler and other exoplanet hunters, we know know alot more about the number of planets. These findings are used to constrain the Drake equation. The rest of the parameters we don't know much about, yet.