Talk:Fermi paradox/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Fermi Paradox and Collapsar power sources.

It's an interesting idea. Do you have a reference/citation for it? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think it's a less common theory. --Beowulf314159 23:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. How about $E=MC^{2}$ for Citation..? :-)

Dyson spheres are the equivalent of the futile past attempts to calculate the age of the sun judging it's "burin" time as a huge space bound chunk of coal would. This was later reverted to it's current estimation after discovering neuclear fussion. The best matter to energy convertion possible(In our non allien physics,that is) is from Matter antmi matter anihilation and or a mini singularities. Not EM power,which is only one aspect of TOTAL conversion. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked for a reference, I get attitude that assumes I know nothing about physics? Ok...

I said do you have a citation. I'm quite aware direct conversaion of matter to energy is a wonderful power source. Show me that it's not just "blue sky speculation" or "something really cool" you read in a novel, or saw on Star Trek, and I'll leave it in.

Now, if you want to just talk "blue sky" speculation, to heck with the black holes, just convert matter directly. What you say, you can't do it? Well it doesn't seem to bother you that you can't create quantum black black hole yet (or don't know where to look for primordial ones), that we don't know to deal with tidal stresses (oddly we do have a theoretical means to contain one - collapsars can retain electrical charge), the danger involved in "harnessing" one, etc. etc. etc.

Besides - your edit claimed it was the best possible way. You have this on divine revelation? The Grays tell you that?

I won't argue that it's a really cool idea - and it's been a really cool idea for about 30 years at least.

What I asked was if you can point to a published paper, a study, or some citation other than a Star Trek novel. If you can't then it's just some sci-fi author's wet dream with no science, engineering behind it. For pete's sake, we've got feasability studies, pulbished papers, and calculations on Shkadov thrusters, Stellar engines, and star lifting.

You question my inclusion of search for Bracewell probes (which is fine, I have citations), and you expect us to swallow tame black holes as the best possible solution? Please!

Show me the referances - Beowulf314159 00:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Stop over reacting ,will you?
• I didn't question your bracewell probes(I dont know what they are,maybe you'r confusing me with someone else) ,nor am I assuming anything about your knowledge(what does startrek got to do with anything??).
• I am a student of physics ,and I find this note to be quite self evident from elementry physics....so a citation would seems kind of redundant ,yet please feel free to question others you feel have more knowledge on the subject.(A star being nothing but a mere neuclear reactor, most of it's matter is held within..)
• Miniatures singularities are "easy" to create ,it really is just a matter of high enough inital energies(Cern 2011 project?) ,but are very hard to maintain and to extract energies from. yet the theoretical basis have been laid down in 1915,and in 1947(more than 50 years).
• Direct matter conversion is possible from antimatter (E=MCC),which it self as fuel has to harvested.(only good as a storing device ,not a harvesting one)
• A dyson sphere could have the benefit of being without the great risk of manipulating a singularity ,yet to completly envelope a star seems almost redundant assuming life sprouced on a planet,moving a the entire civ' a sphere that has many orders of magnitude more living space,thus being mostly empty,and possibly unneeded.(but that's another argument)

--Procrastinating@^talk2me 00:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

*shakes head* I'm not going to get into a bouncy "gee isn't this fun but I don't have to back up anything I say" argument. Show me a serious source - or even a published speculative one - which shows the projected output and/or theoretical means by which collapsars can be harnessed as an industrial power source, or even speculation on how this might alleviate advanced civilization - something with serious theory and/or figures behind it, and I'll agree it belongs here.

Arguments based on "well everyone knows it, just ask around" would have us believing in a flat Earth in the 1400s.

If you can't, then - while it might be a really cool idea - it's original research, and doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. It might make a good article elsewhere, heck, I'd be interested in reading it myself. Turn it into a doctoral thesis if you like. But if it's not backed up in the literature, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. They have whole pages deveoted to the policy on original research. Beowulf314159 01:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I do NOT have you confused with someone else [ http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Fermi_paradox&diff=35464570&oldid=35432449 here ] - Beowulf314159 01:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

---

My minor added remark was a request for clarification ,the passege is not clear about the "all at once" thing. if they were recording and dynemicalyl sending at sub light speeds ,what will be the point of sending and the shutting off ..?

While most of what has been written about deriving useful energy from black holes is in science fiction, here are a few good references. One way of extracting energy from a black hole is known as the Penrose process. The energy comes from reducing the angular momentum of a black hole (or any massive body). A popular-level description is given in Nigel Calder's "Einstein's Universe" in the "Ultimate Waterfall" chapter and a graduate-level description is given in Bernard Schutz' "A First Course in General Relativity", pg 304-305. The Hawking process also results in a "free" energy source since the black hole is "evaporating" quantum mechanically, with photons carrying away energy (also discussed in Schutz' book).

I belive this to be called to Penross prcess or Penross catapult. here some more refrences I got

"here are several varieties of black holes. Fabian focused on massive ones, which may contain the mass of millions or even billions of suns packed into a region the size of our solar system. He and others have found that energy is produced as gas swirls into the black hole, gaining tremendous speed and heat as it nears the point of no return. This hot, fast-moving gas emits lots of radiation, ranging from optical light to X-rays, before being gobbled up. Until recently, only the optical light could be discerned"

There are a lot of fictional refrences ,yet the phyiscs behind it is rather solid. Simply speaking you can simply through any thing inside ,and try to pull on a string. here's another one from MIT [1]

--Procrastinating@^talk2me 01:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Took me about 10 minutes though..:\

---

Cool. Thank you.

That's all I wanted, and all I asked for originally: can you provide some sort of referance for your entry? If you would be so kind as to add the books and/or papers to the article (either as direct links where the "citation needed" notice is, or footnotes and put the notes in the referances section), it would be much appeciated.

As I said in my original post to your discussion page: "I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think it's a less common theory.", and asked for a referance to back it up.

If you have some solid referances there, you might even consider writing an article on it, or linking in and/or expanding the penrose process article into your example, or even this. Once you gave me a name, I could run with it and find all sorts of stuff that is interesting but unknown to a "reasonably intelligent interested layperson", but I hadn't heard about before - which is why I wanted some sort of referances, or wiki cross links; not because I thought you were wrong (although, had you been unable to back it up, I might have thought so).

I'm curious, can you point me at anything to back up your claim about the creation of quantum black holes (or did I misunderstand that)? I ask because of the novel Imperial Earth by Arthur C. Clarke, which as an aside mentions the use of a microscopic black hole as part of a reaction drive.

Beowulf314159 04:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. Yet this is an article about the Fermi paradox(which is Already Way to extensive), I guess readers can follow the links to the main clack hole article and look for refrences there. I'de hate to overcrowd it even further with Completely irelevant ref's.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There is another reason for putting referances in: I asked because I was unfamiliar with any serious theoretical work, and asked you to provide some before I edited it out. Someone else who will think it's "just science fiction" will probably edit it out without asking if it doesn't have a reference. In wikipedia sometimes referances and links are defenses for one's points against other authors. Not a great reason, but a realistic one. - Beowulf314159 18:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

the intro to "Trying to resolve the paradox empirically: What we look for, and how we look"

In the intro paragraph to the section named above, I removed the following text: "Despite the endless theorization, we do not seem to be content merely to speculate about the existence of extraterrestrial life. The unanswered questions raised by the Fermi's Paradox have lead some to actively seek out evidence of extraterrestrial life, in an attempt to resolve the paradox."

...along with some other text. Beowulf314159 put the above intro back.

My version was: "Perhaps the most obvious way to resolve the Fermi paradox would be to find conclusive evidence of extraterrestrial intelligence."

So I thought we could discuss this here.

I don't really "get" the longer intro. Of course we're not "content to merely speculate..." I'd think that goes without saying, but the text mentions this as if it were an interesting fact. And it seems like a non-sequitur for this to follow "Despite the endless theorization". And lastly, the longer intro suggests that the motivation for SETI is to resolve Fermi's Paradox, I would suggest that that isn't the case. KarlBunker 21:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much the paragraph it'self as the point that keeps - apparently - having to be made: Wikipedia and encylopedia articles in general are not bullet point lists. There has to be a flow to the article as well as a concise presentation of language. I'm not wed to the specific introduction; if something better will fit, go for it. But you have to have some form of introduction.

Really, your introduction is a rephrasing of the section title. It would get eaten at the next simplification,

As for other things I've reverted (not all your editing, by any means, or even a sizeable percentage) it's where your edits didn't tighten up information, they changed it entirly: removed parts of comparisons, or changed the meaning of passages entirely. Like I keep saying: tightening of text is a good thing. Ripping out meaning and information is not.

Beowulf314159 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that my introduction is somewhat content-free. I don't see a need for a "real" introduction there, so my sentence was just some stylistic padding as an alternative to jumping right into the sub-headings. KarlBunker 23:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the other changes you've made to my recent edits were very good, BTW. KarlBunker 23:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

And lest I gave the impression that I objected to your editing, I don't - I think a lot of your clarifications cut out a lot of un-needed wordage. The way editing seems to go is some people stuff information and concepts into an article ... then other people come along and tighten it up. The article has needed tightening for awhile - good to see your efforts, thank you.

As for the need for a 'real' intro - it's not really needed other than for flow of article. These are articles, not "quick referances" - there has to be a flow to them. Try making a few "spoken articles", or just listening to some, and you'll see what I mean. Obviously you know something about the topic, or you wouldn't be editing it, but you also have to try and see the article from the perspective of someone who has no clue what it's all about - but is interested, and is trying to learn. Jarring jumps, or having to scroll up and study the TOC to see why the text just lurched from that topic to this one can really disrupt your reading of things. It may seem un-needed 'fluff', or needless repeating, or summarizing some times, but to someone doing a 'cold reading' it can ease them from one place to the next rather than toss them. - Beowulf314159 23:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Article too long/SETI expansion

This article is getting WAY TOO LONG. I can't see the reason for the request to expand even further sub header under A brief history of SETI searches

All there is to know about SETI can be easily found after clicking it. I propose removing the request ,and possibly truncating repetitive information.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 14:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The SETI section can be truncated for sure, made into a couple of paragraphs in total. I'm not sure what else you are proposing to pull out. Typically, if an article is getting to big, sub-articles are spun off it, which could be done in this case. The whole 2nd and 3rd sections could probably become a couple of summary paragraphs linking to separate articles.

As for "repeating information found in other articles", you'll find that it's Wikipedia policy to have redundant information and/or summary paragraphs with links to the main articles. As long as you link it in properly, and make sure that all the information being removes is present in the other article, and you're not losing information and/or points in the process, that's fine. - Beowulf314159 17:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

user:KarlBunker Already agreed with us ,and truncated it.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I know - their changes are what the whole next section is about - Beowulf314159 00:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• the article is ok, too many subsections though, but useful. Don't destroy this article like you did to others, thx. -Pedro 00:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The SETI rewrite

The section on SETI had to be cleaned up. I have no qualms about that. But the SETI programs need to be treated equally. Either the paragraphs there about individual programs should be taken out, the ones that are reduced to WikiLinks need to be expanded, or the individual program points need to be taken out entirely and a general history of SETI search programs written.

Again, the edit changes the meaning. As it reads now, it looks like those search programs which by accident of author time and attention got a brief paragraph look like they have special status, and special mention - when the original layout treated all programs equally.

Ease of editing has warped the impression given the reader: these are important... and these over here are just tacked on for the hell of it.

Beowulf314159 21:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. This section needs more work and a lot more shortening up. At least the current version doesn't specifically ask for contributions that would make it longer. KarlBunker 23:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

OK :) As long as it doesn't get left this way for the next 6 months :) - Beowulf314159 23:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

user:KarlBunker Already agreed with us ,and truncated it.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 23:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know - we were discussing his changes in this section, totally seperate from your section, until you decided to meld them. Your proposal and their edits? Seperate, but related topics. The "As long as it doesn't get left this way for the next 6 months" had to do with their edits, not the original section. Talk about "changing meaning" - it's leaked into dicussion threads already? Please refrain from changing other people's discussions - Beowulf314159 00:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Narrowband Question

Is it that the Arecibo message was a narrow band frequency - or a focused radio beam at a particular target - i.e. energy not dissapated omnidirectionally, but focused at a specific target? The two terms are not the same. - Beowulf314159 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Conclusion" section

I'd like to propose that this section be deleted. The first paragraph is a recap that really says nothing about the article. The second paragraph mentions Occam's razor, which would be interesting if it were at all convincing that Occam's razor actually applies the way the writer says it applies, or applies in any way at all to the debate. . (Does it require fewer assumptions or more assumptions to theorize that humans are the only intelligent life in the galaxy?) And the third paragraph does another recap and attempts to close on a poetically-written note, but it badly and confusingly written. Comments invited. KarlBunker 15:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The conclusion section hasn't been touched in a long time, and the article has evolved to the point where there isn't much of a connection anymore. I has always thought that the conclusion would need to be rewritten at some point, but upon further reflections, a summary conclusion is not usually part of an encyclopedia article. I think it could be safely removed. - Beowulf314159 16:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur. Way too long, repititious, lots of non-encyclopedic stuff. It's a summary of the essay-type and it doesn't really belong.   freshgavin TALK    05:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

technological restraints?

Is there anything new in this addition that should be kept? To me it seems a rehashing of previous points: cultures only broadcast radio signals for a brief time because their technology advances past radio, we're not looking for the right signals, with overtones of the "Zoo hypothesis" with need to pass some sort of "technological or ethical threshold" for contact. Seems to have all been done before. What do you think: can/should this be removed again? - Beowulf314159 23:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's really redundant and adds nothing new. I think it should be deleted. KarlBunker 23:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I concur ,this article is getting TOO BIG ,the entire section for "PRO: scale" for exmaple does the same repeatition.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 18:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What is it supposedly repeating? If it'self, then it can be pared down and tightened, just as long as the argument it'self doesn't get cut out. - Beowulf314159 18:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW - the "point" you are agreeing with, wasn't made. No one said "hey! The article is too big!" We were talking about a specific section which was added "out of the blue", and has been removed. The article size has been stable now for a couple of weeks. It's not "getting" anything. - Beowulf314159 18:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

God created...

Just out of curiosity, can the claim that "Judeo/Christian/Islamic religious texts in particular contain at least the implication that "man" is unique in the universe". Having been raised Juedo-Christian, I don't recall any such doctrine about man being unique. Heck, you might even check out John 10:16-18 "And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold...". I do not want to touch off a religious debate here! I'm just wondering if this claim can be substantiated. - Beowulf314159 12:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, C.S. Lewis once wrote a tale about Christian martians, i'm not sure if that helps... 138.237.165.140 07:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking of Out of the Silent Planet, and the other books of the Space Trilogy which mention a universal religion/spirituality. I wouldn't have said the martians are Christian. It's closer to say that Christianity and their own religion have the same roots, but not the same forms. - Vedexent 13:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

This claim needs to be supported to remain. Certainly the number of monotheist scientists working in astronomy seems to disprove it. C.S. Lewis' (a high Anglican largely theologically similar to Roman Catholics) Space Trilogy seriously considered the possibility that the Christian God had created other forms of life, though (for specific reasons) their knowledge of Him was somewhat different than our own. Similarly, Lewis' friend JRR Tolkein wrote The Lord of the Rings attempting to remain loyal to Roman Catholic theology and considered there the role of other intelligent races in creation. A number of Catholic and Anglican theologians have also considered the issue.

Rare Earth

On the issue of Moon-related Rare Earth arguments, should this http://www.spacedaily.com/news/life-01x1.html be considered ? Not by any registered user

Galactic Orbit?

This article alludes to 30 galactic orbits being approximately hot long "higher life" has been on earth (in the 'Rare Earth' hyptothesis section). But since a galactic orbit lasts about 223 million years, 30 orbits would be older than the Earth itself, would it not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.23.70.135 (talk • contribs) .

The statement that "higher life" has been around for 30 galactic orbits is wrong, and I've removed it. Now the article just mentions the Earth's fortuitous position between galactic arms. KarlBunker 14:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The multiverse?

Latest edit says this

In terms of the Fermi Paradox, the Anthropic Principle also connects with ideas of a multiverse in which all possible universes exist. In this view, one technologically capable species arising in a universe decreases the probability of another arising [citation needed]. We exist in a universe where life is possible and in which no technological species has arisen close enough to affect our development.[citation needed]

Can anyone comment on this? I've never heard anything in the multi-world hypothesis that says anything like this? Can anyone support this, or is this just noise? - Vedexent 23:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Italics

Is there any reason, practically every word used for emphasis has to be italicized? At least for my reading of the page, it's really bloody annoying. Marskell 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

You could let it be, or fix it, or just complain about it - although if you are going to just do the third, that is bloody annoying as well. - 65.94.107.160 21:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work on removing all those italics, Marskell. I agree that the were more than a little excessive. KarlBunker 14:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article removal

Having given this a read over including some ce'ing I think I make take this page to WP:FARC but thought I'd bring up concerns here first, per FARC process. The Featured article criteria at issue:

1. Most obviously, this page lacks in-line citations. There are only three references (though I assume some of the External links were also used for writing).
2. (It should have) "a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents." The TOC is absolutely overwhelming here.
3. "It is of appropriate length, staying tightly focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail." That's debatable here.
4. Finally, some of the logic is a bit tortured and hard to follow, and a touch liberal with undefined "they"s and "critics": "Even if intelligent life occurs once for every few billion of these "ordinary" planets and takes billions of years, they argue, there are potentially trillions of planets (or more) and the universe is billions of years old as well."

Lest this sound like hit-and-run criticism, I did very much enjoy reading it. I'm just not sure if it's up to FA standard at the moment. Marskell 14:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur ,as an intersting and previously featerued article it contracted many wikipedians wanting to expland and expand it....some of the sections here(see "SETI rewrite") became almost as large as the main article that spun of them. maybe it should be slightly more quintessential and orederly. make a descend order propositon of changes and I'll help you out. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 14:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

My comments from the FARC page:

(1) I agree with. However, although I wasn't involved with the article when it was a featured article, it seems unlikely that any citations that were present then have since been removed.

(2) I feel that the table of contents to this article is perfectly appropriate. It's in the nature of the article that it has to cover a long "tree" of topics, branches of those topics, arguments that are branches of those topics, and counter arguments to those arguments. The TOC does an excellent job of organizing all of this. The article would be vastly less readable if one were to interfere with its TOC structure. Furthermore, "overwhelming" is a subjective word with no quantitative meaning.

(4) It's not the fault of the article that there are lots of "billions" involved when discussing something that concerns the size and content and age of the universe. That said, it goes almost without saying that some of the writing in the article could be improved.KarlBunker 14:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want a "a descend order propositon of changes", it looks like adding inline citations is Job #1 - so research of particular points, and referencing them is probably the job people like least, and the job that needs done most. - Vedexent 15:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Point #2 has been dealt with. I added a manual TOC (using __NOTOC__ and appropriate infobox) to control the level of sub-headers included in the TOC. This allows the TOC to be controlled (it isn't so large and sprawling) without having to alter the article's organization (which is quite logical for the topic), nor violate style conventions by making "fake" headings with <font> tags, bullet lists, or bold text. - Vedexent 19:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

>>Point #2 has been dealt with.

Nice work! Kudos. KarlBunker 19:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Moon Formation?

I know of at least three seperate Earth-Moon system formation theories. I really think that if the collision theory is to be advanced as "the current prevailing theory" some citation should be provided.

Besides - why the moon is there doesn't affect the probability of such a large moon being attached to a primary like earth. The formation theory can probably be struck out of the article completely. Probability of size simularity is important. Mechanism of formation is not. - Vedexent 02:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a citation should be included. Unfortunately my personal source for that edit was a Discovery Channel TV show, which doesn't sound very "scholarly", even if I knew how to cite it. I'll try to find something better. (The show went into a lot a detail and was quite unequivocal that this is the prevailing theory.)

Certainly there's a connection between the mechanism of formation and the probability of its size. If the Earth's unique (in the solar system) moon was formed by an unlikely event, then that's an indication that such a moon is unlikely. OTOH, we only have our one solar system as a sample, so it would be a mistake to state that conclusion too strongly. KarlBunker 10:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... ok, I see what you're saying - Formation influence probability. However, collision, capture, and idependant formation are at least the three possibilities for formation that I learned back in grade school :) However, when in Wikipedia... use other people's material as well :) Check out Moon#Origin and history - it lists a couple of formation theories and resources. What you're advocating is the Giant impact hypothesis. Perhaps one the sources there can act as a citation for you? - Vedexent 10:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I can use Rare Earth as a cite if you like, or hit its own works cited to find something. The only problem with Rare Earth is that it's argumentative, rather than disinterested (they "want" the collision theory to be true, as it makes the Earth "rarer" :). Marskell 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind--taken care of. Marskell 15:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Rare Earth could be a cite for other points in the section - but I think there's enough material on Luna formation theories that we can use actual published papers. KarlBunker has already found a couple. - Vedexent 15:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Check the refs on Planetary habitability. We can probably re-se some of them. Removed moon as protector. Sorry to sound like an amateur masquarading as an expert, but having slogged through dozens of pieces on this topic I have never once heard that. Ward and Brownlee would almost certainly have mentioned it if there were are research to that effect. We also need to add plate tectonics which is central to Rare Earth. Marskell 15:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll look for a ref - but a common sense argument? Look at the face of the moon. What percentage of THOSE impacts would have ended up on Earth? I don't know either - but it's reasonable to assume the percentage isn't zero. - Vedexent 15:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop removing points

Please refrain from removing a point or argument unless a) you can refute it, or b) You ask for citation and no one else can back it up after a "reasonable time" (couple of days?). Ripping out point that aren't "immediately obvious" to you, because they are not immediately obvious to you is hardly fair.

I am referring mostly to the point about the prescence of the moon relieving the earth from some of the asteriodal impacts it would otherwise suffer. I have heard the argument several places - I'll try and dig up a reference, and if I can't, I'll take it out because of that. - Vedexent 15:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

OK Ved, no need to shout. WP:CITE: "Disputed edits can be removed immediately and placed on the talk page for discussion..." Wiki-policy is, broadly, that you may remove uncited info until a cite is provided. By all means a couple of days, if you'd like. I wait to be corrected. Marskell 15:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

All right. I've left it out - and will do so until/unless I can dig up a ref, then. It just seemed like an edit war was brewing - that point was removed and replaced once already today. - Vedexent 15:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I also researched this point before I removed it. Not only could I not find any reference, but according my understanding of the science involved, it didn't make sense. I should have made a note to that effect here when I removed it. KarlBunker 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

My objection has less to do with the actual point, and wondering how disagreements on such matters should be dealt with. I guess according to WP:CITE I'm in the wrong here. My own policy has been to use and allow the original author a few days to refute; my own research skills are not infallible - but according to the WP:CITE guidlines that's not needed I guess. My apologies if I sounded like I was shouting. - Vedexent 16:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll only add this: "intuitive science" is a bad way to go about things and I suppose I was guilty in my (partial) revert. Intuitively, I think extra mass = extra impacts. Yes, any crater on the moon might have been an Earth impact, but how many bodies that wouldn't have done so otherwise, entered the Earth-Moon system because of the Moon's mass? ...0.074, according to our mass comparison. "Insignificant!"--or maybe not. That's why we have scientists. Per Karl and my earlier point, I have never encountered this idea and I don't know why Rare Earth doesn't mention it, given that every conceivable stat rendering the Earth unique is presented in the book. Anyhow, at least the article is getting some attention. Marskell 21:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think "Rare Earth" doesn't mention it because no one has published conclusive results - yet. I dug around, and I can find several references to the idea as as problem in astronomical simulations - with some "educated guesses" that moon does "absorb" some the impacts - but no one seems to have published results that are even semi-conclusive. So - it looks like it's not a "way out there idea" (pun unintentional), but the jury is still out on this one for the time being. Which means that if it hasn't been settled, it can't be claimed, so it stays out of the article until/unless someone does publish, or some other Wikipedian finds a ref we havn't. - Vedexent 21:47, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, here's my understanding of the science: The moon can protect the earth from collisions in two ways: The moon can just happen to be in the path of an incoming asteroid/meteor, or the moon can sweep up asteroid/meteor debris that is in orbit around the earth, preventing the debris from spiraling in and hitting the earth. The first is (scientifically speaking) a one-in-a-bazillion chance. The second isn't an ongoing problem because such a debris ring has to come from somewhere, like leftovers from the formation of the earth, or the blasted-out remains of a massive collision to the earth (such as the one that created the moon). As to all the craters on the moon, they're there because the moon has no atmosphere to burn up incoming meteors and no weather or tectonics to erase craters once they form. If the earth didn't have those things, it would be as pock-marked as the moon. KarlBunker 23:22, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation Format

One of the complaints in the FARC nomination about citations is that the external refs are basiclly HTML-linked numbers. No way to tell what they are - or if they still exist. I've changed one of the Refs into the cite.php format, and added the appropriate section to the page (Footnotes). Perhaps new cites added to the page should use this format? - Vedexent 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the cites should use this or one of the other acceptable formats. Let's find the cites first. The ref system can be done in bulk later--though of course it never hurts to do it as you find it. Marskell 09:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that if you look at the text, you will find there are more cites than you think they are all in this form: [2], which tells us nothing about the sources, and - as you can see - most people don't even recognize that there are cites. This is why I say we should be using cite.php. Not only do we need more cites - and I agree 100% that there need to be a lot more of them, and better cites as well - we need to better document the ones that are already there. - Vedexent 10:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Another possibly problematic citation style that seems to occur throught the article is: "this is a point (see really neat book)". I don't know if this is a problem in all cases, or even at all. Opinions? - Vedexent 10:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In general, you need a balance in referencing sci-fi. By all means do so if it's right on-topic, but I think this page over does it. Or perhaps the repeated sci-fi refs make the lack of sci-fact refs more glaring... Marskell 10:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"It begins!"

Well, this is starting to improve, so kudos all. A few things:

• As people go about editing, eliminate "we" and "us" which are all over the place here. This is non-MOS [3] and generally doesn't read professionally.
• I think we can knock five to ten K off this simply be eliminating over-explanation. Shortening won't be a disservice to the page IMO and will actually make it read more crisply.
• Still don't know what to do about citations. I know a few years ago there was a collection of 40-odd answers to the Fermi Paradox but I don't remember the title. Was that used to write this? Has anyone read it? Marskell 09:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What would you suggest? "Humanity"? Self-reference to human beings as opposed to alien beings isn't a bad thing. This is one of those exceptions to the rule, because of the topic matter. Maybe the self-references can be toned down, but I don't know how you can easily compare A with B when you can't make direct references to A, do you?

I guess we could use "Humanity" - that would even avoid POV, although I have been assuming that all Wikipedians are human :D - Vedexent 09:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

In certain cases, i.e., "We are alone" as a heading, self-referential pronouns are acceptable here. But in the vast majority of cases you can eliminate the pronoun without replacing it. "We have little empirical evidence..." --> "Little empirical evidence exists..." In other cases "human beings" rather than "we" will work. See my last edit, for instance. Marskell 10:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Decontructing the organisization

Ok - we, or rather I - already manually implements a "stripped down" TOC so this precise thing does not happen! Ripping out the organizational structure is bad. Why? Because we are catering to at least two different kinds of readers.

1. The article reader: This person will be unaffected by such changes. The information is still there, so if they read the article from top to bottom, they'll still get it. Many people seem to write for this kind of reader, looking to the the Britannica macropedia for a model. This reader is most comfortable with a narrative style article, although this type of reader doesn't suffer a great deal if the material is more broken down into smaller sections: slight drop in "ease" or reading, nothing more.
2. The skimming reference reader: This reader is using the material not so much to learn about something new (they already are quasi-familiar with the topic), but they are looking for a particular fact or facet of the topic, and are often looking to find it quickly. These are the people who would be looking to the Britannica micropedia. These people are screwed by ripping out the "fine grain" organization. They can't find what they are looking for quickly and easily, because it is all "mashed in" to the narrative. They don't have the time to read 10 pages on a topic, and so they leave the article as useless or spend more time than they should/want to reading chunks of the article. These people do suffer from a lack of "fine grained" organization - in many cases just not using wikipedia unless they have time to read whole articles.

Wikipedia has to cater to both types of readers. A narrative style, broken up into fine-grained sub-sections, allows both types to use the article, at the cost of mild "jerkiness" to the "narrative reader".

By ripping out the fine grained organization, relying on your personal opinion that it is "not needed" (maybe you tend to be more of a "narrative reader"), you drastically reduce the use of the article to the second type, and only gain mild improvement for the first.

This is why the TOC was stripped down manually rather than reducing the "granularity" of the organization. I would urge that those sections which have already been merged be returned and sub-sections not be melded unless they actually are speaking of the same topic. - Vedexent 13:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, deep breaths again Vex. The two sections were a single paragraph each. It's absolutely in keeping with Wiki style to eliminate excessive headlines for such short info. Both people skimming and reading fully are going to have a hard time with this page given redundancy, over-explanation, and an absolute glut of headlines. Just scroll down it at medium speed and see how the page strikes your eye. It strikes me as a fucking mess because of all the headlines.

As for the edit in question, I replaced:

Our first inclination as humans is to look for evidence of the type of activities that humans have performed, or likely would perform if we had more advanced technology. In fact, we cannot know with certainty how intelligent aliens might think or behave. Thus aliens may be broadcasting evidence of their existence that we are not looking for, or they may not do things that we would expect any technological civilization to do and thus not broadcast the types of evidence we expect. We can speculate on possible differences between ourselves and alien species, and try to take these into consideration, but all such efforts may be flawed.

with:

Conjecture on the type of evidence likely to be found often focuses on the types of activities that humans have performed, or likely would perform given more advanced technology. It is uncertain intelligent aliens might think or behave identically.

Greater brevity of this sort is needed top-to-down. It's 66 k and given that there isn't a lot k invested in a reference section that's far too big. Virtually every point is non-summary style in the manner of the above content I edited. Marskell 13:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your edit, Marskell (well, I did just tinker with it a bit), but just for the record, I don't agree with this statement at all: Just scroll down it at medium speed and see how the page strikes your eye. It strikes me as a fucking mess because of all the headlines. I'm not saying that we have to be in total agreement on that point to work together on this. I'm just pointing out that your esthetic judgement with regard to headlines isn't universal. KarlBunker 14:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's one part aesthetic but it's also a matter of browsability. "The skimming reference reader" needs specificity. We can all agree on that. Yet over-specifity makes skimming difficult after a point. I think we can all agree on that too. I counted fifty-five headings when I first looked at this page and a lot of the descriptors were lengthy; literally the largest TOC I'd seen (look, say, at WWII for a large TOC you can still wrap your head around). I should say that the work Vex did on the TOC is absolutely great and addresses one FARC concern (sorry if I didn't pass on thx earlier). But those headings still exist in the body and I find attempting to read the page a bit mind-numbing.

Thoughts in this regard:

• Can we drop the SETI search descriptions and simply link to the relevant sub-sections on the SETI page itself?
• Might we revisit the Pro-Con-Pro-Con style of the first main section? It strikes me as meandering right now and jumping around too much. Marskell 14:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So basically you're saying you got your compromise about the TOC/Organization issue, thank you very much, now you're going to strip down the organization anyways? What about this is a compromise exactly? - Vedexent 14:58, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we drop the SETI search descriptions and simply link to the relevant sub-sections on the SETI page itself? - Probably. The SETI program descriptions can probably be taken out - or at least sumamrized into a single paraphraph, and linked into SETI. I'd make sure that points are actually in the SETI article before removing them, though. Maybe add them to the SETI article.

Might we revisit the Pro-Con-Pro-Con style of the first main section? - would you prefer Pros and Cons grouped? No reason not to - it's just a different organizational style - Vedexent 15:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm breathing - I'm calm - stick to the issue not me; this is not about personalities or personal prefeces - this is about organization and usability of the article. Your personal aesthetics are immaterial. It might "look choppy" when you scroll. Who cares? Painting is a visual art form, this is not. This is about the efficient and comprehensive presentation of information.

The size of your edits is immaterial - I don't care how big or small they are - it won't be an isolated case unless we deal with it now.

Making the text of sections more efficient, is a good thing - I will never argue against that, provided that none of the meaning is lost, and the ability to quickly locate material is not lost. And it has been lost - Heck - I co-wrote some of the material you edited, I'm familiar with how the article is laid out, and I still had to hunt around to find mention of the limits of current SETI search ("Oh, it got mashed up in the intro text?!"). Never mind its own section, after you edit the limits of searching doesn't even have a seperate paragraph. The "skimming micropedia" reader can find it quickly and easily? Highly doubtful. Yes, I realize this is a tiny example - but only so far.

As for loss of information: if you can render the pre and post edit text into propositional logic, and there are fewer statements in the latter, you lost information.

e.g. "Aliens probably won't act just like us" != ("There may be evidence that we are not looking for" AND "We may be looking for evidence which won't be present, and making assumptions based on its lack"). The latter has context about us, our motives, our actions, and how they relate to alien cultures as well - which is totally lost in the former. Unless you are assuming the reader can fill in all the implications in their head. You can't - we're supposed to be writing for interested but ignorant people of average intelligence - not grad students in symbolic logic.

You can't stack the deck by ripping out meaning and then claiming you can rip out sections because they don't have sufficient meaning. It isn't something you're doing to any great extent - yet - but its a beginning.

Bottom line: edit away, make it more efficient, cut the size in half if you can, I'm all for that - provided you lose neither meaning or functionality. - Vedexent 14:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that we posted in the same minute I wonder if you read my previous post. I find your tone unfortunate. In future, I'll post suggested changes here if they are substantial. To address the edit again:

• "Thus aliens may be broadcasting evidence of their existence that we are not looking for, or they may not do things that we would expect any technological civilization to do and thus not broadcast the types of evidence we expect." Redundant because mentioned in greater detail later and syntactically awful to boot.
• "We can speculate on possible differences between ourselves and alien species, and try to take these into consideration, but all such efforts may be flawed." A "no shit" sentence that we don't need. Marskell 15:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

*Shakes head* - I don't care about examples, or even wording. My example was just that an example. I don't care if not one word of the current article survives. My point was simple: If meaning is lost, or information is harder to find after an edit, then the edit has damaged the article. Anything else is immaterial. - Vedexent 15:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok - another point "Redundant because mentioned in greater detail later and syntactically awful to boot." - sections have to be semi-autonomous for the "skimming reader" as well. You can't assume that the same reader will go on to read the next 12 sections. A crucial point contained in another section should at least be alluded to with an internal link to that section. - Vedexent 15:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You should care about examples and wording if you want this to remain an FA. Prose is an element of FA criteria. No pertinent info was lost in the edit. As noted, every point that was made generically in the section is made more precisely later. Marskell 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

SETI

• Can we drop the SETI search descriptions and simply link to the relevant sub-sections on the SETI page itself? - Probably. The SETI program descriptions can probably be taken out - or at least sumamrized into a single paraphraph, and linked into SETI. I'd make sure that points are actually in the SETI article before removing them, though. Maybe add them to the SETI article. - Vedexent

I looked at the SETI page and everything is there, in greater detail. I think we can turn all of these into bullet point links with perhaps a single sentence descriptor. Given that "Assumptions" above also uses bullets, the section may look over-bulleted. Perhaps then we should first turn the assumptions into prose. Marskell 15:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually - I don't even think the individual programs need to be bullet pointed. If they are there in the SETI article all those individual program description sections could probably be collapsed into "(see SETI for descriptions of individual searchs)". The details of the searchs aren't really central to the Fermi Paradox - and as long as as link is there for interested readers, the "information is preserved" - Vedexent 15:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok - re-read the section - maybe a small summary paragraph of a couple of sentances describing radio searches in general would be better - but the individual radio search programs need not be detailed in this article. - Vedexent 15:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made the full edit. Sure, one more summary paragraph would be fine. Four K just like that, incidentally. Marskell 15:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also done a little "word trimming" near the start of the section. As for 4k there - good job :) It's one of the easier cuts, but still a good one. I think that a lot of the language can be cleaned up (10-15% reduction) without changing the information content - that's what I tried there. - Vedexent 15:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki glitch?

Ok - I am not reverting other people's edits! I noticed something weird - when I "view changes" and someone has edited since I started (edit collision), I see their changes as well. I hit "save" and rather than getting the "collision warning", it just saves my version over top of theirs. My apologies - I'm not trying to undo edits occuring at the same time. - Vedexent 16:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that. We've been editing at the same time and I haven't gotten a single conflict. Marskell 16:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Theorizing about extraterrestrial life: The basis of the paradox

Well, after some ganashing of teeth today we have made progress. The SETI bit was indeed the easiest cut and there's more tricky stuff on the horizon... I'd like to tackle the first section. My suggestion:

1.0 The basis of the paradox. Short and sweet: crystallize the paradox and the disciplines involved. "The lack of extraterrestrial colonization evidence" can be shortened and merged here--it's implicit at all points to the extent that I don't think it needs its own heading. Perhaps move the block quote from the intro here. List the critical concepts and then...

2.0 Critical concepts

2.1 The argument by scale

2.2 The Drake equation This could possibly be a sub-heading of the argument by scale or vica versa.

2.4 The Anthropic Principle

2.3 The Rare Earth Hypothesis

I think in section 2 we should drop the pro-con thing. These are the concepts for the reader to take as they will. The Drake equation and the Anthropic principle can be used as both pro and con, for instance. Anyhow, this can't be done today (at least in my time zone) and we've already done a lot as it stands. Marskell 17:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit made

OK, I have gone ahead with this. No, not trying to be unilateral. It's done in one edit so the two versions can be easily compared and, if someone is absolutely opposed, easily reverted. Argument by scale combined with Drake, and Lack of evidence combined with Rare Earth. This seemed intuitively sensible and flows nicely. The block quote was moved from the intro to the first section. The pro/con as descriptors is dropped.

Added: a bit extra on how Fermi actually posed the question; some more background on the disciplines involved; some numbers on the amount of stars out there. Removed: the extensive descriptions of possible probes in favour of "discussed below"; we already have two sections on alien constructs and it seemed odd to go into meandering detail early. Incidental info is lost in this (i.e., a reference to an Arthur C. Clarke story) and if anything essential appears gone I can redact it and move it to the appropriate section. Also dropped the 1-in-3 from the impact theory bullet as it was very puzzling. 1-in-3 that an object will form like this? 1-in-3 that once formed it will impact? 1-in-3 that any body like Earth will have this exact sort of event occur (that can't be right!)? Anyhow, it can be re-inserted if someone can sharpen it and point to where in the source it's stated.

After shortening repetitive descriptions (there is a tendency on this page to reuse subjects and objects, as in "proponents of the principle argue that principle is...") this is actually a K shorter. Marskell 09:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

---

1. Descriptions of what you did may or may not be needed - the reasons behind them are much more important.
2. Duplication of summary information is not a bad thing, but you managed that with an internal link. Works for me.
3. The precise formulation of the paradox has been moved into a seperate "definition section". This has pluses and minuses. Personally, I think the precise definition mirrors the logical layout of the entire article, and thus is better suited in the WP:LEAD; being a summary of the entire document.
4. On "first glance" it did look like you basiclly "gutted" the logic of the intro section. On reading it, you basically combined pro and con sections into single sections, which makes sense. There is some loss of structure though I think. The Drake equation is on a par with the antropic principle - neither is really a plus or a minus, they are both used by both sides of the argument. The headers as they were laid out a structured arguement. The headers as they are lay out a "grab bag" of general concepts. I think that the ordered structure is mostly there (pros, cons, supporting ideas), but it has become a lot "fuzzier" because of the header titles and not nearly as obvious to the reader. I think the tightened edits are good, but I think the "structure" should be restored. It used to be: Problem, Arguments for and against, Estimates, Supporting ideas (anthropic principle). Even if this only done on a paragraph level I think its important. Information in an article is contained in the structure as well as the "points". - Vedexent 12:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Sure.
2. The info removed wasn't summary info--it was details about hypothetical probes. Anyhow, if you agree with the intra-page link as it stands, all good.
3. I agree the section after the intro could go back in the intro itself but this would be lengthy as I've added info here (surprising, for instance, we didn't have a date on his question and that astrobio hadn't been mentioned). Taken together, I think the Lead plus Basis of the Paradox as they stand are a stronger start then we had, but I'm amendable to moving the block quote back up.
4. Yes, it was a combination and I did tighten wording (another habit on this page seems to be to explain something and then re-explain it in different words). Personally, I thought the older structure was didactic (this is pro, this is con) and jumpy (moving from one to the other and back again) at the same time. One thing we might do is this: place the argument by scale and the lack of evidence one after another under Basis of the Paradox. List the three others under Critical Concepts afterwards. Anyhow, you're in the midst of editing so I'll wait. Marskell 13:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm ambivelent about where the blockquote goes - I can see arguments either way. Let it sit for now.
• Ok - I wasn't talking about going back the "Pro-Con" interweave - just making sure that the logical structure of the argument is laid up Pros/Cons/Supporting ideas - even if they aren't labelled so explicitly as that. The "jumpy" structure can be jettisoned.
• I did some minor edits/relabelling to make the structure of the debate clearer (I think, anywys). The biggest change was moving the Drake Equation section out to "supporting ideas", as the use of the equation is neutral, like the anthropic principle. - Vedexent 13:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

(after conflict) OK, yes, in thinking about it. Move block quote back into intro. Move argument by scale and the first two paragraphs of Lack of evidence under basis of the paradox. Thus, we're highlighting these as the fundamental points of the dilemma (per news style, if the reader breaks off at this point they'll have gotten the basics).

The paragraphs on the disciplines in involved could then serve as the intro to Critical (or Supporting) Concepts, where we then list Drake, Rare Earth, Anthropic. ? Marskell 13:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Acutally - I wouldn't move anything other than Drake - which I did. That way the article is laid out Summary / Problem / Arguments / Evidence / Explanations. Splitting up the Arguments section into the Problem breaks that logic flow. - Vedexent 14:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, in a sense the structure already partly conforms to the suggestion, as lack of evidence does now immediately follow scale, though there is some sense to having them in full under Basis of (combining Problem and the two most critical points of Arguements, if you like). Perhaps we'll wait for a third party.

As with SETI, so with Rare Earth

I had another thought in looking at how the changes have unfolded today. We have a full page at Rare Earth hypothesis. Do we need the bullet points under the Rare Earth header here? As with SETI, we could just list the principal points in a sentence and direct people to the Rare Earth page. Marskell 14:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Seems logical - moves the "burden of citation/proof" elsewhere as well ;) - Vedexent 14:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Intro Edit

I've re-edited the introduction. Again. As pointed out, explanations tend to get repeated and rephrased in the article. I grouped and merged similar paragrapahs/sections in the intro. I also added the points of the blockquote-definition of the paragraph below, without adding the complete text. Thus the "top level" points of the TOC are summarized in the intro, without a whole lot of extra text. I hope. - Vedexent 17:40, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest and say I'd like to revert the intro back. Why eliminate "in the 1940s"? That's encyclopedic. Why "current high estimates"? This suggests that thinking on the paradox is a recent push to overturn conventional wisdom. "More moderate thinkers" is weasely in the extreme. Aheckum. Sorry. I guess this is where we need a third party. Reading it, I find it a disimprovement.

That said! Many kudos for adding cites. I've had a "style, structure first--cites second" viewpoint for the last few days. I'll certainly try and help. Also, glad you agreed and yourself removed the Rare Earth stuff covered by the main article on the topic.

Can I finally say this: please let's not use the first person plural. No "we"s unless there is no other way to phrase things. Marskell 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There. Really all objecttions were minor phrasing quibbles. No reason to revert back into repetition, loss of the points in the blockquote in summary form, etc. Lets only throw out the bathwater and not the baby, ok? - Vedexent 21:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

We had an edit collosion, and my edit was lost. But I do not understand why you have to make Fermi's state and it's apocraphal nature 3-4 sentences. What is wrong with the apocraphal being a "dashed out" sidebar? 60K remember? - Vedexent 21:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It's actually one sentence. There's a difference between him speaking apocryphally and the phrase ascribed to him being apocryphal. I was trying to emphasize the possibility of the latter. Do you really think he spoke those exact words over lunch? Anyhow, this really is my last edit because hitting edit this page thirty times before a post is awful. Marskell 21:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

SETA and SETV

Are these well-known and active? Do they deserve a mention? - Marskell

1. Freitas Jr., Robert A.and Valdes, Francisco. "The Search for Extraterrestrial Artifacts," Acta Astronautica, 12, No. 12, 1027-1034 (1985).
2. Freitas, R. A. "The Search for Extraterrestrial Artifacts (SETA)," Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 36, 501-506 (1983).
3. Freitas Jr., Robert A. "Interstellar Probes: A New Approach to SETI Journal of the British Interplanetary Society," 33, 103-109 (1980). Abstract: Interstellar transmissions via energy-markers (photons) or matter-markers (probes) appear to be energetically indistinguishable alternatives for advanced technical societies. Since only Type II and Type III civilizations realistically can afford beacons or starprobe technology, alternative distinguishability criteria suggest the possible superiority of intelligent artifacts for contact and communication missions among extraterrestrial cultures. A balanced, more cost-effective Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence (SETI) strategy is proposed.
4. Freitas, R. A. "The Case for Interstellar Probes," Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 36, 490-495, 1983.
5. Freitas, R. A., and Valdes, F. "A Search for Natural or Artificial Objects Located at the Earth-Moon Libration Points," Icarus, 42, 442-447 (1980).
6. Freitas, R. A., and Valdes, F. "A Search for Objects Near the Earth-Moon Lagrangian Points," Icarus, 53, 453-457 (1983).
7. Freitas, R. A. Jr. "If They Are Here, Where Are They? Observational and Search Considerations," Icarus, 55, 337-343 (1983).
8. Papagiannis, M. D. "Are We Alone or Could They be in the Asteroid Belt?," Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, 19, 277-281 (1978).
9. Steel, Duncan. "SETA and 1991 VG," The Observatory, 115, No. 1125, 78-83 (April 1995).
10. Vallee, J. P., and M. Simard-Normandin. "Observational Search for Polarized Emission from Space Vehicles/Communication Relays Near the Galactic Centre," Astronomy & Astrophysics, 243, 274-276 (1985).
11. Betinis, E. J., "On ETI Alien Probe Flux Density," Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 31, 217-221, 1978.
12. Burke-Ward, Richard, "Possible Existence of Extraterrestrial Technology in the Solar System," Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 53,, 2-12, 2000.

etc. I'm thinking that if the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society and Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society are willing to publish about the SETA programs it is "well known" enough. - Vedexent 01:50, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thx. Can you add the source you see most fit? The website hasn't been updated in two-and-a-half years. It didn't read as crank, just as stale. Marskell 21:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The article isn't only about current programs. It's about the paradox, the evidence that would satisfy the paradox, the means by which we have searched for it or are searching for it, and the explanations as to why we havn't found it. It doesn't matter if there are no active SETA programs as part of SETI right now (and I don't know that is the case, I don't know of any current programs, but that doesn't mean there aren't any) - just that there have been SETA programs. If you're looking for the most relevent papers as cites, how about the ones that detail actual searches.

• Freitas, R. A., and Valdes, F. "A Search for Natural or Artificial Objects Located at the ::Earth-Moon Libration Points," Icarus, 42, 442-447 (1980).
• Freitas, R. A., and Valdes, F. "A Search for Objects Near the Earth-Moon Lagrangian Points," Icarus, 53, 453-457 (1983).

Vedexent 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Why do I get the feeling you don't like working with me? LOL. Marskell 04:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing as personal as that. I don't have much time to work on Wikipedia during the week, so any notes in discussion I'm making are in my morning and evening "15 minutes for email". I'm sorry if they appear a bit "short and sharp", but during the week at least they're dashed off in a hurry - Vedexent 11:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Status

More than ten days since the FARC nom which has generated comments but little actual voting. So, IMO we have:

• Greatly improved intro sections. Shorter but actually more info with appropriate links where info has been removed.
• A generally improved "Trying to resolve the paradox empirically" section. Some extra citing and copy editing still needed but it's better.
• A still iffy "Trying to resolve the paradox theoretically" section. Long, over-bulleted and still largely uncited. There's stuff here that's interesting ("For example, if an alien life form had a metabolic rate far slower than our own (such as uttering one word every 12 hours or so, having a life span of millions of years") but ought to be removed if not sourced.

The writing is still somewhat patchy in general as some parts have been ce'ed in one direction and some haven't but this can be taken care. If I were voting at FARC right now I'd probably Abstain. Thoughts on last section? Marskell 14:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What we might look for, How we look

OK, then. No takers on last comment. In looking at this again, I think it redundant to split What we might look for and How we look in section three. Karl said somewhere along the line that we shouldn't "mash" distinct sections together. This is certainly a valid concern, but where things can logically be joined they should be to avoid repetition and reduce size. In this case, it would be fairly complicated merger of sections. Perhaps take it to a sub-page and try it out there. Again, any thoughts anyone? Marskell 11:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, hey everbody. I went ahead and did this. In looking at it now, "What we have found" is also just repetition except for the WOW signal bit. Think I might as well throw that in too. Marskell 12:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reorganizing last section

Well, I'm going to continue to talking to the void here...

---

The last section as it stands:

They do exist, but...

...we cannot communicate for the technical reason that...

• ...we are too far apart in space to communicate.
• ...we are too far apart in time to communicate.
• ...it is too expensive to spread physically throughout the galaxy.
• ...we have not been searching long enough

...most people have yet to see them, even though are here on Earth, because...

• ...they are cloaking themselves from us.
• ...we refuse to see the evidence.

...civilizations only broadcast detectable radio signals for a brief period of time...

• ...because of evolving technology.
• ...because of depleted energy resources.
• ...they choose not to communicate, or are too alien.

...Earth is purposely isolated (The zoo hypothesis). ...they have experienced a technological singularity. ...but we do not understand them, even though they are communicating, because...

• ...we are not listening properly.
• ...we misunderstand their attempts, or we dismiss the evidence.

---

Suggested last section:

They do exist, but

...we cannot communicate due to problems of scale.

• ...We are too far apart in space to communicate.
• ...We are too far apart in time to communicate
• ...It is too expensive to spread physically through the galaxy
• ...We have not been searching long enough

...we cannot communicate for technical reasons.

• ...We are not listening properly
• ...Civilizations only broadcast detectable radio signals for a brief period of time
• ...They have experienced a technological singularity

...they choose not to communicate

• ...The Earth is purposely isolated (the zoo hypothesis)
• ...They are too alien

...they are here and we don’t know it.

• ...They are cloaking themselves from us.
• ...We refuse to see the evidence

---

What's done/what this tries to accomplish:

• Those listed as technical reasons now are not specifically technical and better described as problems of scale.
• Those that are technical reasons will be described as such and grouped together. "Technological singularity" and "only communicate for a brief time" will be demoted to level four bold and placed in this section. "Because of evolving technology" and "because of depleted energy resources" get merged into the latter.
• They choose not to communicate is promoted to level three as I think it something people might browse for.
• The last section standing now, "but we do not understand them, even though they are communicating, because", is to be removed as redundant. "We are not listening properly" gets moved to a technical problem. "We misunderstand their attempts, or we refuse to see the evidence" is broken up and merged into "they are too alien" and "we refuse to see the evidence."
• The level four bolds will no longer take the ... at the beginning as it makes it unweildly in formulating headlines.

Whew. Thoughts? Marskell 16:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Skeptical Inquirer issue

The current issue of Skeptical Inquirer magazine (put out by CSICOP) has a series of 4 articles on SETI. I recommend it highly to editors of this article. The articles aren't at all "skeptical" in the sense of "aw, c'mon, there's no such thing as aliens". Rather, the first article takes a stance of "we've been looking for a long time and found nothing; maybe we need to lower our expectations," and the following 3 articles are largely rebuttals to this viewpoint. One quote I particularly liked (paraphrasing):

The Drake equation shouldn't be used as if it had predictive value. It is only of use as a way to organize our ignorance, so we can have a rational discussion.

KarlBunker 18:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

It's always unfortunate that the best articles are often not free... Assuming that some won't get around to reading this for that reason, maybe you could come up with some cites Karl if the articles are on topic with specific things here. Marskell 10:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

More sources from Astrobio.net [4] Marskell 18:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[5]

Reversion and reversion

Looks to me like as if you guys (Karl and Marskell) have a pretty tight view of how you want this article to look, or at least a view that is wildly incompatible with my own. Twice I've tried to change the blockquoted first section into prose, and just now Karl reverted my section title shortening. That's ok, I'm not always right when I make changes, but the rationale for my edits was to bring this (verbose, repetitive) article closer in tone to the other articles I've edited. The way it is now with the sentence length section titles (and the ellipses) is a bit unusual. Kaisershatner 19:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and FWIW I'm beginning to think the entire second half is really original research. Although it purports to explain theories related to the Fermi paradox, it lacks citations. Kaisershatner 19:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

From the comment I left on Kaisershatner's talk page:

The italicized section, while not a quote, should be set off in a block quote and in italics, IMO, because it is the crux of the article. The article is about one single question, so a careful wording of that question should be clearly set apart. If this were a magazine article, the editor would probably have used a pull-quote box for that passage, even though it's not a quote. I expect many book editors would do something similar. Similarly, the long, sentence-like headings may break a rule, but they are important for keeping the structure of the article clear and visible. The article is an unusual one, being an examination of a question rather than an examination of a topic, so it seems appropriate to me that the best way to lay it out involves breaking a rule or two of standardized style. KarlBunker 20:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Karl, thanks for your response; consider us at peace. :) I still disagree about the blockquote, but it's not the biggest deal. Kaisershatner 21:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the last section, first: I agree it's the most problematic and someone just coming to the topic might find it OR. It's not OR, ultimately, as the topics we address there are addressed in any longish look at the topic. See the headings here, for instance (the longest work I know of specifically on the topic, though damn me I'm in the Mid East and can't get a copy). Everything discussed at the end has been discussed in the general sense; Kaiser suggested on my Talk that it diverges from the topic, but the topic is discussed specifically in terms of these rebuttals. We're really not OR'ing here though we need more cites. And do note citation has been improved there, cites increasing from one to about six (though I still need to format some). But it's still far from perfect. One way to look at it is, anyone who's read on the Fermi Paradox would likely think "ya, ya, same shit I've seen before" and anyone who hasn't would think "what the hell is all this business?". We need to make it more original for the first and flow better for the latter.

Regarding the quote, I like setting it apart. It's the Wiki summation of a theoretical question. I can live with no italics, but I think the block quote format should stay.

Finally, I'd suggest to Kaiser: is there a heading structure, ideally a very specific one, that you could present here for debate? You want empirical stuff after theory, for instance? I'm not exceptionally "tight" on this article, having rearranged massively myself. Marskell 22:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you both for your replies. I think a proposed structure is a great solution; I'll try to put one together in my sandbox. It sounds as if you two have much more in-depth knowledge of this subject, which is helpful for writing a comprehensive article about it. I am essentially a novice reader, which is why I think I tend to see deficiencies in clarity and sourcing. I can assure you that my goal here is for all of us to collaborate on making the article better. Let me make some suggestions at my userpage and you can tell me what you think. (Incidentally NB the article is now 56k - could use some cutting). Kaisershatner 13:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Twas 66K before the reform process started about a month ago ;). Marskell 15:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, some editing at here, but it's not complete. Along the way, I have made some observations: I think the topic of the article wanders somewhat. The most egregious example is in the four paragraphs on SETI - their decisions on bandwidth, how and why and where to scan, limitations, etc. There is an article about that - SETI - I think we should cut about three paragraphs/condense this. I attempted this in my sandbox revision. I think the upper section works better as "related arguments," because the main subject of the article is supposed to be the Paradox and these arguments are all explanations related to it. I think the final sections are a really long list of really theoretical explanations, and not an exhaustive one at that - it's not clear to me where to draw the line and this relates to the "original research" questions I raised earlier. Maybe ET life doesn't exist because Tom Cruise killed it - should we include that theory? Why not? This is where sourcing is crucial, because presumably the arguments listed here are mainstream scientific ones. (I realize being in the Mid East may complicate your efforts to respond to this). Maybe ET life does exist and there IS evidence for it (see: X-files). I guess I agree that the end sections need major work. I'm not sure I have the background required. Kaisershatner 15:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The "argument by scale" and "the lack of evidence" are not related arguments--they are the paradox. They book-end one another and were presented as they were for that reason. I'd actually suggest leave the first sections for now and focus on one thing at a time, with SETI first. I can live with cutting it--we cut once before and we did exactly the same thing with Rare Earth, which at one point was unpacked in its entirety. But you need to make sure there's no info loss by going to the SETI page and deducing whether everything removed is in fact mentioned there.

We shouldn't include Tom Cruise killed it because no credible scientist has put forward that suggestion. Again, see this list. Or see the twenty-one sources we do have. Look at "intelligence destroys itself"--I have Sagan, Hawking and a third. We need to do that for every section at the bottom. It has been started.

Anyhow, check the SETI page, and then perhaps present in your sandbox the current section and your preferred. Marskell 16:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm contradicting myself, asking for a complete structure and then asking for one thing at a time. Sorry... If you just want to be bold with SETI thing, OK. We can compare later. Marskell 17:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Another comment into the void...

I hope user Kaiser didn't decide to leave because of talk responses here. I looked at his sandbox and, having thought some myself, I think there are things that can be done to both reduce this and make it more cogent:

• Merging the "argument by scale" and "lack of evidence" into "Basis of the paradox." I think this will flow naturally and is in keeping with Kaiser's sense of putting things where they belong. If we have a "Basis of..." then Scale and Lack of evidence belong within it.
• Having a "Radio Transmissions"/SETI section close to what Kaiser suggests. Where it seems more appropriate, move info to "not listening properly". The SETI page does cover a lot of this--it can be reduced.
• Dropping "Anthropic principle" as its own heading. It makes more sense to note the Anthropic principle under Rare Earth and later under "God created humans alone", rather than devoting a section to it.

Other tweaks, of course, could be done. Probably no one will respond and I'll just do this a few days from now. But, as always, opinions welcomed. Marskell 22:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm still lurking, just pretty busy. I thank you for your response(s). I'm a little gunshy, given my bad track record at getting my edits through, and also my style of editing tends toward the Major end of the scale. Maybe I'll try to rein myself in and work on the SETI section & we can see how it goes. Kaisershatner 18:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I went and added some of the removed info back to "not listening properly" under "...we cannot communicate for technical reasons." It's been trimmed and compressed though, and we're still dropping a couple of K. If you look at what's been done I think this works well. Marskell 19:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

First point now done too. This may be a function of me working on it and naturally approving of my own edits, but I actually think this page is beginning to tighten up... Marskell 21:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Last things

I think the last area that seems over-long is devoting two longish sections to the Alien artifacts. The bit at the very end about they're already being here is also a bit iffy without sources. Beyond that, I think we need a few more sources, which have already rapidly expanded, some tidying, and it seems pretty good to go. Marskell 11:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The Section We misunderstand their attempts Has Been Badly Mangled

The following section had been badly mangled over time, distorting its main point, that it is not that they are 'here' and 'no one' sees them, but that they DONT NEED to travel, as long as a 'few' can perceive them via non-ordinary modes of consciousness. The hypothesis is that the evidence of physical absence points to the superfluity of space travel to a community of alien intelligence that communicates non-locally.

Also, I believe Terence McKenna's hypothesis involved psylocibin, not DMT, though he did a lot of DMT as well, he had some theory about mushroom spores surviving space travel. I dont recall any such theory re DMT, though I may of course be wrong.

Changed to:

We misunderstand their attempts

Another series of views consider that alien entities have been communicating with humans throughout history, but utilizing methods and technologies that are outside most 'normal' person's experience or imagination. "Signals" are reaching us, but are perceived by only a few individuals, and then in a distorted manner. Accounts of communication have perhaps have been reported in ancient religious texts (possibly accounting for the wide variety of anecdotal reports of angels, demons, and so on) but have been dismissed or overlooked by modern science.

As an example: if the human brain utilizes quantum mechanical processes in its operation (as theorized by Roger Penrose, Stuart Hameroff, and others) then it may be open to receiving some form of nonlocal "psychic" communication, perhaps using quantum entanglement. It has been proposed that some accounts of mystics, shamans, schizophrenics, and channelers may be such "garbled" communications, transmitted by non-human intelligences in this manner. According to quantum mechanics the transfer of information in the context of information theory is not possible using quantum nonlocal correlations. However, supporters of the idea of this form of communication idea believe that this may explain the "garbled", associative, and inspirational nature of the "messages" recorded in the world's religious and anthropological history. This idea also explains the evident absence of space travel, which is unnecessary to the community of alien intelligence communicating via this medium.

Other unusual suggestions include Terence McKenna proposal that the psychoactive drugs psilocybin and/or Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) is an alien technology, "seeded" here on Earth by non-human intelligence, as part of a "biological communication strategy", in order to alter the perceptive processes of the human mind so that it may receive messages being transmitted to us. While these particulars are perhaps dubious, it is an example of a theoretical means of communication that would appear very alien to our way of thinking, and would most likely be misinterpreted or dismissed outright.