3 ms·

Agree with the underlying thesis of the post, but wonder if their criteria suffers the same issues as the thing they are being critical of. I wonder what the a

Agree with the underlying thesis of the post, but wonder if their criteria suffers the same issues as the thing they are being critical of. I wonder what the author would think of the Drake Equation or quantum mechanic's superposition, as they seem to check a good deal of these boxes but are widely regarded.

thaumasiotes 2y ago
The Drake equation is well regarded by people who are terrible at math.
flufluflufluffy 2y ago
I don’t think I’d call the Drake Equation widely regarded. Personally I can’t stand it, one of the most quintessential examples of “mathiness”, though at least it’s dimensionally sound xD (it’s all probabilities). I don’t know what equation you mean by “quantum mechanics’s superposition”, but most equations used in quantum mechanics actually are meaningful and represent some physical phenomenon to a high degree of accuracy though (I.e. they make predictions which can be verified through observation and measurement).
- AdhemarVandamme 2y ago
  The first factor of the Drake Equation (the average rate of star formation in our Galaxy) has dimension 1/time. The last factor (the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space) has dimension time. The other factors are unitless ratios. So yes, the Drake Equation is dimensionally sound. It is also a true equation. Not observed to be true, but reasoned to be true. The right hand side is the left hand side multiplied by some non-zero factors, and divided by the same factors, and rearranged (into the multiplication of a time rate, 5 ratios, and a length of time). There’s still a lot of uncertainty about the numerical value of some of the factors — but the math is sound. Therefor I wouldn’t put the Drake Equation in the same category “mathiness” that the original article is talking about.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

The Drake equation is well regarded by people who are terrible at math.

flufluflufluffy 2y ago

I don’t think I’d call the Drake Equation widely regarded. Personally I can’t stand it, one of the most quintessential examples of “mathiness”, though at least it’s dimensionally sound xD (it’s all probabilities). I don’t know what equation you mean by “quantum mechanics’s superposition”, but most equations used in quantum mechanics actually are meaningful and represent some physical phenomenon to a high degree of accuracy though (I.e. they make predictions which can be verified through observation and measurement).

AdhemarVandamme 2y ago
The first factor of the Drake Equation (the average rate of star formation in our Galaxy) has dimension 1/time. The last factor (the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space) has dimension time. The other factors are unitless ratios. So yes, the Drake Equation is dimensionally sound. It is also a true equation. Not observed to be true, but reasoned to be true. The right hand side is the left hand side multiplied by some non-zero factors, and divided by the same factors, and rearranged (into the multiplication of a time rate, 5 ratios, and a length of time). There’s still a lot of uncertainty about the numerical value of some of the factors — but the math is sound. Therefor I wouldn’t put the Drake Equation in the same category “mathiness” that the original article is talking about.