History of Drake equation/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

	Revision 10 . . December 4, 2001 7:01 am by (logged).128.164.xxx
	Revision 9 . . December 4, 2001 6:41 am by The Anome [reply to AxelBoldt]
	Revision 8 . . December 4, 2001 6:35 am by AxelBoldt [Where's the paradox in Fermi's paradox?]
	Revision 7 . . December 4, 2001 5:06 am by Lee Daniel Crocker
	Revision 6 . . December 4, 2001 4:18 am by (logged).128.164.xxx [I don't like the certainty a lot of people seem to have about some of these figures]
	Revision 5 . . December 4, 2001 3:13 am by Taw [n_e x f_l]
	Revision 4 . . December 4, 2001 2:51 am by The Anome [reply re 'conservative']
	Revision 3 . . December 4, 2001 2:49 am by The Anome [reply to anon commentator.]
	Revision 2 . . December 4, 2001 2:41 am by Taw [fairly conservative]
	Revision 1 . . December 4, 2001 2:29 am by The Epopt [question]

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Added: 22a23,24

:If there are a couple of orders of magnitude of flexibility to a couple of the terms in an equation like this, then I don't see how it can be reasonably used to suggest _anything_ with enough certainty to base a serious discussion on. I see the Drake equation as more of a suggestion of what we should be trying to find out in the future than as a useful analysis of life in the galaxy at this point, and wanted to make sure the article didn't give the wrong impression (ie, that "scientists say there should be aliens everywhere" or that "scientists say we're alone in the universe").