with terms employed in another paradigm. Obviously, there may be benefits associated with the new paradigm – post-Copernican astronomy solved the problem of predicting planetary motion – but there may be losses involved with a scientific revolution, which are termed ‘Kuhn-loss’. For example, the consolidation of science-based medicine brought major benefits in mortality and morbidity rates but Kuhn-loss can be discerned in the widely forgotten practices of natural medicine.
Early responses to both Feyerabend and Kuhn were hostile, with accusations of anarchism and mob-psychology levelled at both of them. Feyerabend’s notorious slogan, ‘anything goes’, was seen as a way of endorsing witchcraft, astrology, Ufology, and many other areas of inquiry traditionally reserved for cranks. Kuhn’s appeal to paradigms as frameworks within which particular forms of scientific discourse are meaningful was criticized (and even sometimes defended) as a means of permitting all sorts of fringe activities to claim scientific status, as long as they could indicate that their activities were meaningful within a paradigm. Nevertheless, despite these objections, the legacy of Feyerabend and Kuhn is their demonstration that an excessive concern with the methodology of science is incompatible with developments in frontier areas of scientific inquiry.
A programme that is suggestive of solutions to long-standing problems will nevertheless have to survive the scrutiny of the wider scientific community, but it is unlikely to be dismissed with an appeal to the canons of scientific method.
Is SETI scientific? The answer is yes, if we interpret science as something that scientists do. Opponents have maintained that it is unscientific, a form of pseudo-science, but this label only applies to some of the fringe activities which pay little attention to scientific facts and theories. Pseudo-science is attached to most branches of science where there is a broad area of public interest. The medical sciences are surrounded by a vast array of pseudo-sciences which include crackpots. SETI likewise reaches to the fringes but nevertheless adheres to established scientific facts and theories. It does, however, differ from much of scientific activity in the sense that it is driven by metaphysical beliefs and deep psychological desires for companionship. But world-views do not have to be antithetical to scientific evidence, and metaphysical and psychological factors are a long-standing respectable feature of good science, which were only temporarily excluded in the heyday of logical empiricism.
SETI is also distinguished from fringe science by its acceptance of Occam’s razor, the imperative to limit explanations to the plausible and testable before admitting more exotic hypotheses. This is well reflected in the ongoing and seemingly endless controversies over Martian life. Following the indeterminate findings of the Viking experiments, N.H. Horrowitz said:
It is impossible to prove that any of the reactions detected by the Viking instruments were not biological in origin. It is equally impossible to prove from any result of the Viking experiment that the rocks seen at
45
the landing sites are not living organisms that happen to look like rocks. Once one abandons Occam’s razor the field opens to every fantasy.
(1977: 61)
SETI is still a young science and therefore it can be argued, in accord with Feyerabend’s account of scientific research, that it should be given enough breathing space to grow. But how does it compare with other young sciences? It is approximately the same age as molecular biology and older than chaos theory. It differs fundamentally from these two because its subject matter might not even exist. On the other hand, just one authentic detection would yield massive rewards and a place in posterity alongside Columbus, Galileo and Darwin. This is why it is attractive to many young and talented scientists. SETI has also focused attention on what we mean by ‘intelligence’ in a way that may turn out to be more philosophically rewarding than inquiries into artificial intelligence systems. It offers a cosmic standpoint for the understanding of intelligence and forces a critical assessment of hidden assumptions concerning its origin and function.
SETI’s richness may encourage suggestions that its claims are non-falsifiable. If not on the Moon, then extraterrestrial intelligence is to be found on Mars. If not in the solar system, then other stellar systems, somewhere in the galaxy or other galaxies. This is not to say that SETI scientists tenaciously cling to refuted theories, but simply that even when refuted, hypotheses concerning the possibility of life in certain sites, can be re-applied to other sites. The avoidance of falsification is not a ruse to protect a research programme, but simply reflects the fact that only a small fraction of space has been searched. Although, strictly speaking, the hypothesis that there is extraterrestrial life cannot be falsified, SETI scientists base their research on empirical statements and observations which can be and are falsified. Moreover, it is unscientific to conclude that an ETI hypothesis has been tested and failed unless a really extensive search has been carried out. There are also strict rules governing confirmation, which in SETI research is not vacuous as in spiritualism where almost any experience may be deemed confirmatory. SETI research has applied strict regulations over confirmability, such that no purported signal has yet had an acknowledged confirmation. Repeated failure, however, might not be seen as decisive falsification, but it would certainly contribute to a loss of interest and a reduction in resources.
SETI differs from Ufology and branches of fringe science by its adherence to its methodology of scepticism, requirement for verification, and acceptance of the parameters of scientific knowledge. Its maturity is reflected in its reluctance to support wild claims or endorse inadequately documented data. Its researchers accept that it is normal for the propounder of an exotic hypothesis to provide argument and evidence to convince the sceptic. A failure to do this has dogged Ufology from its beginnings. Nevertheless, as in all branches of science, it is not the case that scepticism must rule in the absence of overwhelming proof, and
46
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104