> In other words, I'm convinced they could have easily arrived at probabilities like 0.1% or 99.9% by reasonably varying their prior distribution for that param

> In other words, I'm convinced they could have easily arrived at probabilities like 0.1% or 99.9% by reasonably varying their prior distribution for that parameter alone. In other other words, this reading of the paper also confirms the general point it makes: The Drake equation is garbage-in garbage-out. There is no way to determine what numbers to plug into it. So let's just drop the whole unscientific nonsense.