[mvzvm]

The Drake Equation always felt like gibberish to me. How can you have an equation "used to estimate the number of active, communicative extraterrestrial civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy" when we have nothing to test it with?

[nend]

Take a look at the article:

"Rather than being an actual means for quantifying the number of intelligent species in our galaxy, the purpose of the equation was meant to frame the discussion on SETI. In addition to encapsulating the challenges facing scientists, it was intended to stimulate scientific dialog among those attending the meeting. As Drake would later remark:..."

Then follows a video of Drake speaking.

[delecti]

It's a thought experiment meant to highlight known unknowns. If we could perfectly measure each field, we would necessarily have an idea of the number of intelligent civilizations. Each term raises interesting questions, even if they can't be precisely measured (or even guessed at with any confidence).

[vimacs2]

I have to disagree. It is useful to be able to quantify the exact state of ignorance that we currently have and as our observational reach expands, the values of the variables in the equation should become less and less fuzzy.

The problem isn't with the Drake equation, it's with the pop science articles that extrapolated things from it way beyond the original intent or scope.

[treeman79]

Several sets of unknown on an infinite universe, so we know know nothing.

However thanks to speed of light the data set is not infinite, just absurd.

So we know almost nothing.

Given time the expansion of the universe will push all galaxies and stars away from us. The data set will be 1.

We now know everything.

As expansion continues all hydrogen items will eventually break apart. All life has ended.

Nothing now knows us.

[s1artibartfast]

But we do have ways of testing it. We can and do look for extraterrestrial civilizations coming from nearby planets and solar systems, and thereby place bonds on the output of the Drake Equation.

For some combinations of parameters, we should expect to see life on most other bodies within the solar system. The search for life on the moon and mars are simple empirical tests of these predictions.

[kelnos]

You can certainly have it, you just can't use it with any sense of accuracy until you have more data.

[neolog]

> nothing to test it with

What do you mean here?

[sigg3]

It's like rejecting quantum superpositions because you're fond of cats.