UFO Conjecture(s)

Saturday, June 11, 2016

Fermi's Paradox isn't Fermi's

Joel Crook sent us this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.09187

RR

3 Comments:

  • "the Fermi paradox...misrepresents Fermi's views, misappropriates his authority, deprives the actual authors of credit, and is not a valid paradox."

    What Baloney!

    Robert H. Gray is just some attention-seeking crank who registered with arXiv and posted this nonsense. It will most probably be deleted shortly.

    [Fermi] "concluded on the basis of such calculations that we ought to have been visited long ago and many times over. As I recall, he went on to conclude that the reason we hadn't been visited might be that interstellar flight is impossible, or, if it is possible, always judged to be not worth the effort, or technological civilization doesn't last long enough for it to happen."

    "In summary, Fermi did ask the question, and perhaps not surprisingly, issues still debated today were part of the discussion. Certainly, the line of argument that York remembers became familiar a decade later as the Drake-Greenbank Equation."

    http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1057.htm

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Saturday, June 11, 2016  

  • > Robert H. Gray is just some attention-seeking crank who registered with arXiv and posted this nonsense.

    Are you sure? The paper was published in a journal (and he has been published previously in other journals). Gray thanks no less than Steven Dick for commenting on earlier drafts of this paper.

    http://online.liebertpub.com/toc/ast/15/3

    By Blogger Terry the Censor, at Sunday, June 12, 2016  

  • Terry;

    He's just some nut who thinks that by rubbing up against personalities on the periphery of astronomy and vanity-press publishing his thoughts on the subject make him an expert.

    1. He calls himself an "astronomer" but doesn't have an appropriate degree for that title. His whole act is not about real astronomy but the self-aggrandizement typical of cranks attaching themselves to science.

    2. He is ET obsessed and practices self-styled backyard SETI, which might be admirable if it weren't so hopelessly impractical as to be worthless. It's cargo-cult or junk science, it's pseudoscience.

    3. He has convinced himself that the Fermi paradox, all of "Fermi paradox" thinking, its history and conclusions, are obstacles to SETI--while ignoring the obvious failure of SETI itself.

    4. And foolishly thinks that by reinterpreting the history of an idea, parsing words, redefining and renaming the "Fermi paradox" the "Hart-Fermi argument" will somehow remove these imaginary obstacles to SETI.

    It was astrophysicist Hart--who knew the history of the idea and all that it entailed, and who expanded on it--that named this complex of astronomical observations, assumptions, arguments and conclusions the "Fermi paradox" in honor of Fermi. And that's not likely to change; and even if it did, it wouldn't affect SETI or how knowledgeable people think about SETI or funding, or thinking about life in the Galaxy.

    He might as well be driving up 6th Avenue looking for the Avenue of the Americas and seaching for ET signals on his car radio.

    By Blogger zoamchomsky, at Tuesday, June 14, 2016  

Post a Comment

<< Home