4 ms·
I would recommend reading the conclusion before dismissing this as "they picked numbers to throw at the Drake equation". The point of this paper is to provide m
by MauranKilom 6y ago
I would recommend reading the conclusion before dismissing this as "they picked numbers to throw at the Drake equation". The point of this paper is to provide modeling not only of the scalar output of the drake equation (which is... not used at all) but of the possible spatial and temporal distribution of intelligent life in the galaxy. For example, it turns out that even for wildly different choices of the unknowns, the region (and age) of the Milky Way that contains most life (i.e. that SETI should focus on) is the same.
Also, why do you consider "unknown" a problem when they explicitly set out to investigate the influence of these parameters? For example, they explore Pann of 0.0, 0.5 and 0.99 (per Myr). Could you explain what problem you see here?
- mellosouls 6y agoI would recommend reading the conclusion before dismissing this as "they picked numbers to throw at the Drake equation That's a misrepresentation of what I said. I made it clear I had only read as far as I had because the premise of the title was unpromising given the unknowns, and that it sounded like an updating of the Drake equation without its flaws in the calculating of probabilities (as implied by the title) addressed. Feel free to summarise how it fundamentally differs from Drake in that important regard, with the findings and their usefulness in the context of the unknowns and title which promises an estimate of extraterrestrial intelligence.