Talk:Fermi paradox/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

References

Since we're including a footnote (in the above section "Criticism of logical basis section"), let's try to re-create this aspect of our main page to the extent possible. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Synthesizing mirror life as one of hypothetical explanations of Fermi paradox?

There is a possibility of synthesizing mirror life - with cells built of mirror versions of standard molecules (enantiomers), and our civilization is slowly approaching this point - in 2016 there was synthesized mirror version of a large and crucial protein (polymerase) in a Chinese lab: https://www.nature.com/news/mirror-image-enzyme-copies-looking-glass-dna-1.19918

However, it is also opening a Pandora box - completely new life which has a possibility of dominating our ecosystem due to nearly not having compatible natural enemies. Here is a Wired article estimating that mirror cyanobacteria (single cell organism which is able to photosynthesize), could exterminate our type of life on Earth in a few centuries: https://www.wired.com/2010/11/ff_mirrorlife/

As this is a natural possibility in technological development of civilization, which might be unstoppable for dominating ecosystem and exterminating its previous life, maybe it is worth adding to hypothetical explanations of Fermi paradox? Jarek Duda (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This is very similar to the "grey goop" potential catastrophe from nanotechnology. Now, even if we say, we have safeguards, it's highly safe . . . but if we're talking about the destruction of the planet, a risk, say, of one out of two billion is not necessarily a gimme and a freebie. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Science fiction is different from a plausible scientific hypothesis. Rowan Forest (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Living cell is already kind of nanorobot, optimized through billions of years of evolution - it is far from certain that it is physically possible to design something much more efficient, even so, it will need centuries, millennia ... in contrast, synthesizing mirror life is relatively straightforward - in 2016 there was synthesized mirror polymeraze, here is Nature 2018 "How biologists are creating life-like cells from scratch" ... it seems we are approaching this point, and so should other civilizations in our stage of development. There are a few ways to get through this beginning of synthetic biology in development of advanced civilization: 1) It might not be that deadly (?) 2) It is possible to contain mirror microbes in a lab indefinitely, or 3) civilization realizes the danger and somehow indefinitely prohibits this type of research ... both 2 and 3 seem really tough for a long term (?)Jarek Duda (talk) 22:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Other species may be more risk-averse. We humans -- for better or for worse or for both! -- we race ahead. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Releasing such mirror microbe into environment, especially photsynthesizing into ocean, even a superior civilization will have no chance to control it - it will just spread, evolve, speciate - slowly finding and adapting new ecological niches, disturbing ecosystem practically not having compatible enemies - e.g. in a few centuries taking nearly all CO2 from our plants in WIRED "kill us all" article. Additionally, mirror (enantiomers) biomolecules are often toxic - while microbes might adapt, higher organisms like mammals have rather no chance - would likely die out from hunger and toxicity while rising population of mirror microbes. Jarek Duda (talk) 19:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

In his book Catastrophe (2004), Richard Posner made the point that a lot of potential catastrophes involved a runaway self-replicating process. For example, he talked about high-energy particle accelerators and the possibility that it could create the bad type of strangelet. I think that's where I got the idea that a one out of two billion is not necessarily a slam dunk. Now, the people who came up with that estimate essentially said, well, heck, we just came up with that by fudging the numbers upward looking at how likely a worse case scenario is. And I think that's as far as the conversation went. But I think it could have usefully gone a couple more exchanges about risk and safety.

By the way, I think Wired is a plenty good enough source to include on our main article page. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Does 'BibCode' have enough upside to be worth the nuisance factor?

Brin, Glen David (1983). "The 'Great Silence': The Controversy Concerning Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life". Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 24: 287, 298. Bibcode:1983QJRAS..24..283B.

It's a whole vending machine's worth of information. The second link in the list gives a slow download. The third item, Full Refereed Scanned Article (GIF), gives a faster download. And the fifth item is Citations to the Article (71).

I don't want to lose this information, which is kind of why I'm putting it here. But no, I don't think it's either particularly respectful or particularly helpful for our readers. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Now, the other hand . . .

"The Great Silence: the Controversy . . " (15-page paper), Quart. Journ. Royal Astronomical Soc., David Brin, 1983, page 287, sixth paragraph, "Equilibrium is another concept which weaves through the new SETI debate . . . ", as well as page 298, third paragraph, "Newman & Sagan (4) have suggested that population pressure is not . . . ".

I think the reader wants to know what is it, who wrote it, and when. And I think the simpler style gives this.

And I'm half done. With page 287, I've told readers where on the page and how that paragraph begins. And I want to do the same with page 298. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have done the same with page 298. Now, both make it easier for our reader to actually find the information. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

several eyewitnesses of original conversation, and several different remembrances

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5746675

The original conversation is partially lost, partially found with people's fallible and very human memories.

---

Eric Jones of Los Alamos Labs wrote a letter to Edward Teller on July 13, 1984:

' . . . Hans Mark has given me a secondhand account from a retelling he heard in the early fifties, . . . '

' . . . The way the story is being told these days is that the lunchtime conversation turned to the possibility of interstellar travel and/or signaling. Fermi became engrossed in a quick calculation and then announced “If you are right, then where is everybody?" . . . '

A month later on Aug. 13, 1984, Edward Teller wrote:

' . . . I have a vague recollection, which may not be accurate, that we talked about flying saucers . . . also remember that Fermi explicitly raised the question, and I think he directed it at me, "Edward, what do you think. How probably is it that within the next ten years we shall have clear evidence of a material object moving faster than light?" I remember that my answer was "10^-6 " [one in a million]. Fermi said, "This is much too low. The probability is more like ten percent" (the well known figure for a Fermi miracle). . . '

' . . . and maybe approximately eight of us sat down together for lunch. . . '

' . . . Then, in the middle of this conversation, Fermi came out with the quite unexpected question "Where is everybody?" [Emphasis added] What I am sure of is that your quote, "If you are right, then where is everybody?", is wrong. Fermi did not tie his question to any conversation which was then going on. The result of his question was general laughter because of the strange fact that in spite of the Fermi's question coming from the clear blue, everybody around the table seemed to understand at once that he was talking about extraterrestrial life. I do not believe that much came of this conversation, except perhaps a statement that the distances to the next location of living beings may be very great and that, indeed, as far as our galaxy is concerned, we are living somewhere in the sticks, far removed from the metropolitan area of the galactic center. . . '

---

Eric Jones wrote to Herbert York on Sept. 4, 1984 (including the letter from Edward Teller). A week later on Sept. 11, 1984, York wrote back.

Herbert York wrote:

' . . . Fermi said, virtually apropos of nothing: "Don't you ever wonder where everybody is?" [Emphasis added] Somehow (and perhaps it was connected to the prior conversation in the way you describe, even though I do not remember that) we all knew he meant extra-terrestrials. He then followed up with a series of calculations on the probability of earthlike planets, the probability of life given an earth, the probability of humans given life, the likely rise and duration of high technology, and so on. He [Fermi] concluded on the basis of such calculations that we ought to have been visited long ago and many times over. [Emphasis added] . . . '

---

Jones wrote to Emil Konopinski on Sept. 24, 1984 also sending him copies of Teller's and York's letters. Konopinski wrote back on Oct. 17, 1984.

Emil Konopinski wrote:

'I have only fragmentary recollections about the occasion that your letter refers to. I do have a fairly clear memory of how the discussion of extra-terrestials got started--while Enrico, Edward, Herb York, and I were walking to lunch at Fuller Lodge.

'When I joined the party I found being discussed evidence about flying saucers. That immediately brought to my mind a cartoon I have recently seen in the New Yorker, explaining why public trash can were disappearing from the streets of New York City. . . '

' . . . There ensued a discussion as to whether the saucers could somehow exceed the speed of light and it was after we were at the luncheon table that Fermi surprised us with the question : "But where is everybody?" [Emphasis added] It was his way of putting it that drew laughs from us. I think there were only the four of us just as Herb York remembers it.

'I have absolutely no recollection of the numerical estimates that Edward mentions, except that they changed rapidly as Edward and Fermi bounced arguments off each other.'

---

Now, we do include this reference (currently our 10th reference), but we don't really dive into the fact that different people remember the conversation somewhat differently.

Jones, E. M. (March 1, 1985). ""Where is everybody?" An account of Fermi's question"". Los Alamos National Laboratory. OSTI 5746675. Retrieved 2018-10-10.

I think we should be upfront about this aspect. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems like a fair statement. The article's topic is scientific, but doesn't enforce the scientific method, so unproven corollaries are fair game. Maybe it would be better if the quote was moved out from the leading section and into the "History" section. This way it would lose a little importance, but keeping it's relevance. Liberty5651 (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think we should leave the quote, although perhaps add that there are several different versions. Teller and Konopinski seem to remember pretty much the same quote (I haven't yet dived into the York letter.) And even with all this, the succinct quote "Where is everybody?" (Teller's remembrance) is a great brief statement of the Fermi paradox.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The lead paragraph is all that many people will read, and should contain only the most important aspects. The Fermi Paradox connects with some of the greatest scientific and philosophical questions of our times. But out of all the things a person should find out when looking up "Fermi paradox" for the first time, the exact wording of Fermi's quote, and the number of observers that immediately connected this with ETs, is not among the most important information. We should keep it in the history section, but it does not belong in the lead. LouScheffer (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

SETI - Radiology as the Way Forward - Signatures of Brains (just like New York City from the Satellites)

Some people turn it the other way: they suggest using Radiology to look for brain signatures out there in Outer Space. Furthermore, given that this proposal has been communicated 20 years ago, about 1000 such signatures have been found outside our Solar system. Debate? Add to the article? 81.191.200.197 (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following you exactly, but on Wikipedia it's best to cite your reliable sources so that your assertions could be verified (especially to ensure that they do not constitute original research or synthesis). El_C 07:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Aliens might detect our electromagnetic leakage, though we cannot.

I added this point to "electromagnetic emissions". The only reason I'm discussing it here is that it's a self reference. I think this is OK since (a) it's directly on topic, (b) it's cited elsewhere, and (c) I don't know of another reference for how good alien receiving technology might be. More circumstantially, I've written other peer-reviewed papers in this field, I'm an editor of a book on SETI (SETI 2020) published by the SETI Institute, and was on the review board for the Allen Telescope Array, so hopefully I'm not a complete crank.

I leave it up to other editors whether this reference should stay in. If it is removed, however, I hope it can be replaced with another reference that makes the same point. Thanks, LouScheffer (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

You sound like a thoroughly alright individual, and I think it's fine to self-reference occasionally.

but . . .

"The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay", The Atlantic, Joe Pinsker, Aug. 11, 2015.

This illustrates why you might run into some opposition. For example, a medical device company tried to boost their sales by changing a Wiki article so that a procedure went from controversial to mainstream, which of course is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, or more! So, yes, you might run into some knee-jerk opposition. Please just respond as patiently and matter-of-factly as you have here.

On unrelated topic . . . I have wondered how unlikely the Cambrian Explosion is (and/or precursors). But maybe the possibility of multicellular life needed oxygen to build up to certain levels, so the whole thing might not be as unlikely as it appears. And, Wow, if there's a good reference that dives into this, I for one would be interested! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: You may enjoy the book The Cosmic Zoo, by Dirk Schulze-Makuch and William Bains. [1] It may be useful to this article as well, as it talks about the Fermi Paradox and is largely about the likelihood of various transitions in the history of life (e.g. multicellularity). -Crossroads- (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation! :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Good to include both abstract principles and specific examples.

Paleontological Tests: Human Intelligence is Not a Convergent Feature of Evolution., Charles Lineweaver, Australian National University, Canberra, published in From Fossils to Astrobiology, edited by J. Seckbach and M. Walsh, Springer, 2009.

For example, on page 5, he includes a graph of both brain size and nose size among different species and groups of species, to illustrate his point that neither one is "inevitable," or convergent. And in general, I think it's a good idea to include both abstract and specific, especially when the source itself puts a lot of weight on a specific example.

He also writes, "Thus, dolphins have had ~20 million years to build a radio telescope and have not done so," (page 10), which I think is very succinct and to the point, and perhaps worth a whole paragraph of longer, more abstract explanation. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Details of conversation should not be in the lead paragraph.

The lead paragraph should have only the most essential information about a topic. The Fermi Paradox is an important question of science, to which the details of the lunchtime conversation are irrelevant. A line or two to explain why Fermi's name is associated is reasonable - any more is not.

Especially in the lead, we should be sure to be only include the essentials. The page is read 4300 times per day, and most people will read the lead paragraph. If people read at 250 words per minute, for *EVERY WORD* in the lead, that's 17 minutes per day, or two work-weeks per year of reader's time. This is why we should only put the most essential facts in the lead, especially when the details are spelled out in the article for those who want them. LouScheffer (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of short and sweet. However, there really are different remembrances -- "Where are they?" (Teller), and "Don't you ever wonder where everybody is?" (York), and "But where is everybody?" (Konopinski). And there's no reason for privileging one over another.

I have a couple of ideas. Let me see what I can put together. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Plus, people are often keenly interested in how something got its name. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:15, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

How it got its name "Fermi paradox" is from a conversation involving Fermi, already in the lead. The details do not add to why this is the case. And if a reader is keenly interested in the details, they are right there near the beginning. Furthermore, there is a link that jumps directly to "Original Conversations". LouScheffer (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Now that we've both made our opinions known. I'd love to hear what other editors think. Anyone else care to comment? LouScheffer (talk) 02:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with LouScheffer on this one. The lunch conversation should only be touched on very briefly in the lead; the details of the varying accounts can be lower down. That stuff is really tangential to the paradox itself. -Crossroads- (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'm warming to "But where is everybody?," as we currently have. It's medium in length, and all three are pretty close.

And plus, we may have bigger fish to fry. For example, the following. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Is it our job to clean up a narrative?

Herbert York doesn't remember a prior conversation. And Edward Teller may be remembering a different conversation since he wrote, " . . . and maybe approximately eight of us sat down together for lunch," whereas the other two distinctly remember just the three of them plus Fermi. At the very least, there is considerable doubt whether Teller is remembering the same occasion.

And considerable doubt should influence how we cover something. We can ask, is it our job to clean up a narrative? And I tend to answer, no, we do our readers a disservice if we do.

(York wrote that a prior conversation made sense; he simply didn't remember it.)

"Where is everybody?": An account of Fermi's question", Dr. Eric M. Jones, Los Alamos technical report, March 1985. Jones wrote to Teller on July 13, 1984, York on Sept. 4, and Konopinski on Sept. 24, 1984.

I really encourage the two of you, and anyone else who is interested, read any two of the three letters. See the differences, the gaps, etc, etc. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Verbiage on music album, TV show, etc.

And smack dab at the beginning of our article. We clearly need a disambiguation page.

The page Upstairs Downstairs might provide a good model and template of what we could do.

Or, better yet, Jesse James (disambiguation). I hate to use an outlaw, but this is a good example of a main usage and then lesser known usages. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

That's just how WP:HATNOTEs work. This is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Fermi paradox", so this should not become a disambiguation page. For "Where is everybody", I Googled it without quotes and all the results were Twilight Zone related. So that primary topic appears to be the episode, and I will retarget that redirect and remove the hatnote here. There is already a hatnote there for here, and article links and searches on Wikipedia are very unlikely to use that phrase anyway. As for the production company, that article could likely be sent to AfD. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like your change was a definite improvement. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Most people in general think we have tried SETI extensively, without results

For example, most people don't know:

@Crossroads: "As for leakage radiation, at present we couldn't even detect Earth-level leakage radiation from Proxima Centauri b."

To the contrary, most people remember being told something of the sort: Earth has been broadcasting radio for approximately 100 years and thus is at the center of a ever-increasing sphere of radio we have broadcast.

That is, most people have been (indirectly) told that picking up leakage is a piece of cake. Thus, making this potentially among the more valuable information we can present -- something which is true, but which goes against what many people currently believe. If we can provide good references, that is. If not, well, then we can't currently do it. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

---

For example . . .

SETI neural networks spot dozens of new mysterious signals emanating from distant galaxy, Tech Crunch, Devin Coldewey, Sept. 10, 2018:
"The perennial optimists at the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or SETI, have joined the rest of the world in deploying AI to help manage huge data sets — and their efforts almost instantly bore fruit. Seventy-two new “fast radio bursts” from a mysteriously noisy galaxy 3 billion miles . . . "

Okay, so it's a FRB (fast radio burst) which could conceivably be intelligent life, but is most likely a natural phenomenon. But notice how the article opens--"The perennial optimsts" at SETI--as if we have extensively searched already. But not for leakage, no, we haven't! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I very, very much doubt that FRBs are aliens. But yes, people do very much overestimate how much SETI has been done. If there are sources connecting this to the Fermi Paradox, such that we are not writing original research into the article, then that would be an excellent addition. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The simple fact that we include "The Great Silence." If SETI is only listening for directed, intentional messages and not able to detect leakage (which I understand is the case), then not such a great silence!
PS I think it's unlikely that Fast Radio Bursts are aliens, too. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. In fact, there is only a Fermi Paradox if we assume that aliens do things that we have never done ourselves and which may not be possible - engage in interstellar colonization and/or expend on their own version of METI much more time and resources than we ever have. If humanity is near the technological and energy consuming limits for a species, there could even be millions of species like us throughout the galaxy. If I eventually find sources making these points, I will add them to the article. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

---

(1) Eavesdropping on Aliens: Why Edward Snowden Got E.T. Wrong, Live Science, Stephanie Pappas, Sept. 23, 2015:

' . . Doug Vakoch, a researcher at the SETI Institute in charge of interstellar message composition. . '

' . . "Even our radio and television signals that are streaming off into space would be undetectable by us if they were out at the nearest star system beyond Earth," Vakoch said. . '

So, here's a SETI guy saying we couldn't detect Earth-type leakage from the nearest star. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, but unless it mentions the Fermi Paradox, it's WP:SYNTH. Also, media sources are not the best. I'll find something eventually. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

the "Fancy" version of a reference actually conveys less useful information

For example,

Krauthammer, C. (December 29, 2011). "Are We Alone in the Universe?". The Washington Post. Retrieved January 6, 2015.

For some reason, we obscure the guy's first name. Whereas, if we included 'Charles,' some readers might realize, Oh, yeah, Charles Krauthammer, the big time political columnist for the Washington Post, and author of four or five books (the late columnist, for he died in 2018).

And we flash two dates at our readers? And I can hear it now, well, it makes it easier for editors. Yes, but our goal is to make it easier for readers, even if it's a little harder for our editors. It's normal and healthy for readers to skim quickly through references, and I think we should embrace this and make it so that it works smoothly and well. And plus, we nowhere say that this is an opinion piece (!), which it certainly is.

I'm going to change this one reference.

I'm not going to go hog wild and change a bunch a references all at once. But I might change a couple from time to time. And I'd ask you to maybe also change a couple from time to time. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add first names rather than first name abbreviations, I don't see a problem with that. The existing article isn't consistent in its use of first name initials. APA calls for first name abbreviations, though. WP:CITEVAR prohibits wholesale change without consensus, so I guess this is me objecting to the proposal to remove citation templates or the access dates. Access dates help with verifiability, not editing - websites can be changed over time so citing an access date is analogous to citing a book revision number. They should be retained. VQuakr (talk) 07:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: I did not see this post until today. It was not my intention to ignore what you were saying. In fact, I welcome discussion even if we disagree. For older threads or topics, please use the "{{ping . . " method to get my attention, or something similar. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: Please don't do this [2]. Don't change anything at all that removes information from the cite. Geogene (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. FriendlyRiverOtter, WP:CITEVAR has already been pointed out to you. You can, however, add a URL to the "cite journal" template without removing the template; example here. VQuakr (talk) 04:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

I welcome feedback, participation, and discussion toward consensus. With that understood, let me ask:

Which of the following more quickly conveys information to readers pressed for time:

Stephenson, D. G. (1984). "Solar Power Satellites as Interstellar Beacons". Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 25 (1): 80. Bibcode:1984QJRAS..25...80S.

Solar Power Satellites as Interstellar Beacons, Quart. J. of Royal Astronomical Society, David G. Stephenson, 1984 (first quarter), page 80.

The first has four links, only one of which is for the article, although the bibcode will get there with difficult. The second simply has the one link to the article, plus the author's full name. It spares the busy reader a whole garble of numbers. Or, we might hide the info with with [open angle bracket, exclamation mark, dash dash] . . . [dash, dash, closing angle bracket] if it's considered to have a lot of upside, although frankly, I really don't think the bibcode number or the volume number is worth it. Wiki readers scan references quickly, and this should be accepted and in fact embraced. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

From the WP:CITEVAR, I see:

" . . Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; . . . it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, . . "

I wish to toot my horn a little. I changed the reference in the process of checking it. And two edits later, I changed "radio" to "microwaves" to more nearly reflect what the reference was saying. That is, I did the very rare act of checking legacy material against an actual reference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fermi_paradox&diff=939498343&oldid=939497135

I'd say when any of us does this rare act . . . well, that user has earned the right to attempt to improve how we cite the reference, subject to discussion and group input of course. In fact, the second set of eyes looking at the actual reference might be what really hammers it down and gives us confidence that we have correctly summarized it.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

But, you do understand that microwaves are a band of radio waves? And nobody here "deserves" to go against the site-wide consensus on citations. Geogene (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that depends on whether one is a lumper or a splitter in regards to classification! Many common diagrams of the electromagnetic spectrum show and label microwaves separately, and I think it’s more accurate and precise to so describe them verbally.

As far as consensus, the WP:CITEVAR states " . . Wikipedia does not mandate styles in many different areas; these include (but are not limited to) American vs. British spelling, date formats, and citation style. . “

I attempted to make a reference more streamlined and useful to readers. I invite all of us to do the same. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 00:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: per your reply above, understood that you hadn't seen my reply before your last citation change. Thank you for clarifying. To answer your question, other than spelling out the first name (which is against APA and unnecessary in my opinion but I can't say I am opposed to strictly speaking), the existing cite with the template seems clearly better. For one example, moving a citation away from starting with author last name is clearly a step in the wrong direction that makes it inconsistent with works cited sections virtually everywhere. Whether it "quickly conveys information to readers pressed for time" is a poor criterion for selecting a citation style. You made it less useful overall, not more so. And no, editing the article doesn't give your opinion more weight. You are also stepping into WP:STICK territory here; the site-wide consensus on not systematically changing citation styles is crystal clear, and the existing citation style used in the article is extremely common. Do feel free to add more "url" parameters to the citations if you wish, though. VQuakr (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with VQuakr. The template formats the citations in the same way across Wikipedia, and so has support for being designed the way it is. References using them should not be changed. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

And giving readers a reference with four bluebirds (links), only one of which is really useful . . . somehow that is helpful to the reader? I guess it does provide more information, but it is not useful, at-your-fingertips information.

Well, I'm always interested in how people can look at the same information and come to pretty radically different conclusions.

Regarding WP:CITEVAR " . . nor should they edit articles for the sole purpose of converting them to their preferred style . . " Well, that certainly have not been my sole purpose, now has it?

And the original reference:

Stephenson, D. G. (1984). "Solar Power Satellites as Interstellar Beacons". Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society. 25 (1): 80. Bibcode:1984QJRAS..25...80S.

included three bluebirds, none of them really useful! (although the bibcode number will take you there with difficulty). In fact, I'd challenge either of you two, get to the article itself by using this.@VQuakr:, thank you for improving this reference so that it at least has one useful link. Obviously, I wish to go further. And again, interesting how people have such different viewpoints. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Only very rarely do we check legacy material against references

I mean, something is added five years ago and that's that. It's not checked a single, solitary time. And will probably go another five years and still not be checked.

An exception might be when a new reference conflicts with the summary of an older reference (such summary, of course, may or may not have been all that accurate in the first place). This sometimes motivates a Wikipedian to check.

I suppose I can toot my horn just a little. I did some work way back last April in which I checked some material against the David Brin reference cited. This basically worked because I was interested in reading his whole article anyway. Brin both has a PhD in science and is a good writer, and I think that's relatively rare combo.

For example,

"The Great Silence: the Controversy . . . " (15-page paper), Quarterly J. Royal Astron. Soc., David Brin, 1983, page 296 bottom third.

"The Great Silence: the Controversy Concerning Extraterrestrial Intelligent Life" (15-page paper), Quarterly J. Royal Astron. Soc., David Brin, 1983, page 300 " . . abandonment of planet-dwelling . . ".

I'm giving the page number and even the part of the page because I want people to check. You don't have to do it exactly my way. As long as someone is moving in a generally positive direction, I'm satisfied.

PS I really think if each of us check some legacy material once a year, we're running way ahead of the curve! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

and simple grammar corrections can be among the worst

Because the very nature of a grammar mistake is that it can mean A, or B. And we're going to correct this simply on the basis of what makes sense, without going back and checking the original reference? ? And usually probably, this works just fine. But I've got to think there are occasions when it doesn't. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding aliens might be utilizing encryption as Hypothetical explanations for the paradox

this Hypothetical explanation has been covered and discussed extensively by different papers and media including live Science , Scientific American , Huffington Post , The Intercept , The Guardian , etc. I tried to add it to the article twice, it gets completely remove by people who do not understand encryption and radio communication. even due i am giving up, i hope one of you picks this up and add it to the article. SimulatedZero (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@SimulatedZero: right now most of our long and low range wireless communication including Mobile phones, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth are encrypted, making them indistinguishable form random signals is flat out false and sounds, like most of the rest of the section, like someone just made it up off the cuff. Those signals are modulated and quite distinct to recognize. Each sentence should be taken directly (paraphrased) from a reliable scientific source. A couple of citations at the end won't cut it. You may be on the right track but we need sources not WP:OR and WP:SYNTH.—DIYeditor (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: i agree that the part where i explain even humanity itself might be on the path to use encryption to make all communication signals indistinguishable from random signals needs polishing, why don't you Just remove the parts that don't meet Wikipedia standard and let the hypothetical explanation get to the article, so someone else can improve it later. Considering alien civilizations might be using encryption is very important when someone is trying to detect alien communication, and it is relevant to an article discussing why we have not detected other civilizations yet.SimulatedZero (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

SimulatedZero, I've read both the sources you used. The Intercept source correctly explains that Snowden was wrong and that encrypted communications would still stand out as artificial. Additionally, it wouldn't make sense for a message beamed at us to be encrypted, because the whole point is to communicate. (As for leakage radiation, at present we couldn't even detect Earth-level leakage radiation from Proxima Centauri b. We will get some range when the Square Kilometer Array comes on line though.) Because this proposed solution is flawed, it has no coverage I know of in academic sources, and so is not WP:Due. Media sources are typically not nearly as good as academic ones. -Crossroads- (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Of course some people will argue against this Hypothetical explanation, there are arguments against almost every other hypothetical explanation in this article, the fact that this explanation been discussed by more than 7 independent well known media sources (listed above) makes it noteworthy. people who argue Snowden is wrong, unlike him don't have a deep understanding of Cryptography and therefore can not predict advancement in our Encryption technologies within next few decades, therefore can not envision what kind of encryption advanced alien civilization might be using. also there is a lack of understanding of Radio waves. back to the points you made, the chances of you receiving a direct clear message form an alien civilization in your lifetime is very very low, lets say you rebroadcast Arecibo message to me that hypothetically live on M13, assuming your message travel at the speed of light, i will receive it after 25,000 years if i am listening on the exact time your message arrives; when should i have sent you my message for you to receive it in your lifetime? we are much more likely to overhear communications originating from alien spaceships and colonized planets.SimulatedZero (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

"Lack of understanding of radio waves" is reflected in the sentence I quoted above which you still have not attributed to a reliable source. Also, when you say sources "listed above" it is misleading for third parties following this thread because you added the refs after the responses and originally only asserted it had been covered in those sources. What might be helpful is if we work on a new paragraph with each statement supported by a specific RS and maybe if you would quote what you're basing it on. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor:regarding the sentence you quoted above, it is not false, needs polishing, replace "them" with "encrypted content", its not suggesting that our current encrypted wireless communication is indistinguishable from background noise, its suggesting that encrypted content within transmissions are indistinguishable from random signals.SimulatedZero (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

This again? Has anything in the sourcing changed since last time it was discussed? Geogene (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I cant believe how unfriendly user interface of Wikipedia is after all these years, I search for "encryption" and "cryptography" within article revisions and archive discussions, can't find anything, can one of you experience contributors please provide links to both discussion and article section removed years ago, so we can learn what exactly transpired here 5 years ago; i bet that's an interesting read SimulatedZero (talk) 08:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC) Please? Anyone? SimulatedZero (talk) 08:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@SimulatedZero: you could try typing "encrypt" or "Snowden" into the archive search box at the top of this page. Talk:Fermi_paradox/Archive 8#Snowden. VQuakr (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the recently restored encryption section. We discussed it extensively when it was topical, five years ago. I would be more accepting with peer reviewed journal sourcing. Geogene (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

you guys delete the whole encryption section because you don't like part of it, lets first shorten it and get the parts that meet Wikipedia standards in the article, then will work on improving it. i am sure Wikipedia allow us to use our common sense, lets understand that we are cataloging hypothetical explanations for a paradox in this article not absolute facts like where a city is located SimulatedZero (talk) 03:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing there to work with. All of it is factually wrong, and contradicts the one source that gets it right. In addition, it's undue weight on something a celebrity with no known background in science said in a podcast, five years ago. It doesn't merit coverage at all. And in the future, please refrain from posting pseudoscience in Wikipedia's voice. I am deeply concerned by the way you misrepresented the Intercept piece. Geogene (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Geogene. This is WP:UNDUE, period. It is really just old news of the offhand opinion of someone with no relevant expertise; some pieces credulously repeating it and others debunking it. Even this coverage is very thin - the Huffington Post and Guardian pieces are the same, and the same goes for the Scientific American and LiveScience pieces. The Fermi Paradox has an ample academic literature, but it apparently never mentions this suggestion or incident, which is why it is undue in totality. -Crossroads- (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE even when director of SETI talks about it??? I am new here and don't know how to deal with people who can't see pass their own ego, I leave it to other more experience people to deal with you, meanwhile checkout the rewrite of the encryption section. I will not make any more contribution to this article. SimulatedZero (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Improved and revised the encryption section to better meet Wikipedia standards. SimulatedZero (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I have watched this "discussion" with interest and mounting concern for SimulatedZero's position and edit warring. The truth is that this matter was discussed in detail some five years ago. I agree with Geogene's comments above, these refs are really old news and a classic example of WP:UNDUE. It really is time to stop this edit warring. Regards to all, David J Johnson (talk) 12:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@David J Johnson: Stop accusing me of edit warring, after i submitted the explanation, someone deleted it arguing WP:OR, I added references, resubmitted, then someone else deleted it, stating some part of it is false, then I initiated this conversation on the talk page, after extensive discussion here, i simply submitted a completely rewritten revision to meet all Wikipedia standards, for review, it was pending not posted, aren't you capable of understanding the challenges a new user faces when tries to contribute? SimulatedZero (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Defending the "Encryption section" against WP:UNDUE

1) WP:UNDUE designed to keep "a viewpoint [That] is held by an extremely small minority" out of Wikipedia; Are you claiming the viewpoint that "hypothetical alien civilization capable of making transmitters might utilize encryption" is so ridicules of an idea that only extremely small minority agree with??? I argue this viewpoint is in the majority, most common sense people agree with it as a valid point. in fact, I claim the opposite "hypothetical alien civilization capable of making transmitters would never utilize encryption" is held by extremely small minority.

2) When considering the weight of a viewpoint for inclusion, it should be weighted against other ideas present in the article, I argue that many of included Hypothetical explanations for the paradox, bare the same or less weight compared to "encryption explanation". how can we not include "encryption explanation" viewpoint where other ideas with same or less weight are already included?

3) Seth Shostak, director of the SETI Institute's Center for SETI Research, when interviewed by Live Science regarding "encryption explanation" argues that its impossible to hide a transmitter if its transmitting and doesn't go against encryption utilization by hypothetical alien civilizations; Doug Vakoch, a researcher at the SETI Institute in charge of interstellar message composition, when interviewed by Live Science regarding "encryption explanation" argues "The technology is simply not there to overhear broadcasts not directed at earthlings" and suggests encryption could pose problems for people searching for alien life in future when humanity develop ability to overhear broadcasts not directed at earth (see already referenced Live Science link). therefore i argue that even qualified scientists don't disagree with "hypothetical alien civilization capable of making transmitters might utilize encryption"

4) Some users collectively making a mistake of removing "encryption explanation" 5 years ago doesn't make it right. put you ego and competitive nature aside and look at this objectively. don't think in the terms of i won 5 years ago i am not gonna lose now. SimulatedZero (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Quote: i am not gonna lose now maybe time to consider the advice in the WP:1AM essay? —PaleoNeonate – 21:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'll tell you, I'm not real impressed with the arguments against inclusion. For example, the claim that Edward Snowden is not a scientist? ? He worked professionally in the field of encryption. At the end of the day, I think I'd take that over someone who has only worked as an academic. Plus, many readers will know who Edward is, and can reach their own conclusions regarding how much weight to give to his arguments.
The fact that we looked at this matter 5 years ago, and now it's forever etched in stone? ?
And on the plus side, the fact that we humans use encryption, I don't think it's that much a reach to say aliens might do the same. And currently, I don't see where we use the word "encryption" a single time in our article. That is probably at the very least a missed opportunity. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: I'm not real impressed with your defense. The fact that Snowden is completely wrong, and that his explanation is completely based on his idiosyncratic misunderstanding of the underlying science, doesn't bother you? Geogene (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Just wondering, why doesn't the fact that Snowden voiced this idea on the podcast of Neil deGrasse Tyson, who holds a PhD in astrophysics from Columbia and is the director of the Hayden Planetarium, and he did not voice any objections to it, either during or after the podcast, carry any weight? deGrasse Tyson is not exactly famous for holding back his opinions. Granted he's just one academic among many, but the idea that academia has rejected Snowden's idea outright seems to ignore this obvious fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbesorgt (talk • contribs) 07:28, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

looking at the comment above, its clear to me that Geogene has a strong opinion against the person who first publicly suggested the "encryption explanation", I smell strong bias but I am going to give Geogene benefit of the doubt and ask if you can provide any reliable source or notable person characterizing the "encryption explanation" Quote: his idiosyncratic misunderstanding of the underlying science? The 2 High ranking SETI scientists didn't say anything like that when interviewed by Live Science regarding "encryption explanation" SimulatedZero (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

@SimulatedZero: Generally, reading a source [3] before citing it [4] is considered a basic competency here. Geogene (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

I've been watching this conversation on my, well, watchlist degrade progressively further down Graham's hierarchy over the last couple of days. Can I suggest that everyone step back for a day or so, then come back on their best behavior to try to reach a consensus? Failing that, maybe it's time for help at the WP:DRN? VQuakr (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions like this one are not how you retain competent, long-term editors. I'm unwatching this page, have fun with the troll. Geogene (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

The Fermi Paradox generally tends to be a part-time, multi-disciplinary topic, and that's probably a strength. And the fact of the matter, a fair number of the potential solutions we list have only two references; some have only one. Yes, it will be a stronger section if we have other people in addition to Edward Snowden talking about encryption in the context of radio astronomy. With just Edward, I guess we could make it one or two sentences in the Civilizations broadcast detectable radio signals only for a brief period of time section. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: Quote: it will be a stronger section if we have other people in addition to Edward Snowden talking about encryption in the context of radio astronomy. does "Doug Vakoch" count? a researcher at the SETI Institute in charge of interstellar message composition, when interviewed by Live Science regarding "encryption explanation", suggested alien using encryption could pose problems for people searching for alien life in future when humanity develop ability to overhear broadcasts not directed at earth (see already referenced Live Science link) SimulatedZero (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC) I think we have an article about him here: Douglas Vakoch SimulatedZero (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, we need academic, scholarly sources to establish WP:DUE for any inclusion. Otherwise it's WP:NOTNEWS. There are no academic sources talking about this in the context of the Fermi paradox because an encrypted signal is still an artificial signal and would be noticeable as such. Encryption is not magic pixie dust that hides that a message exists; it hides the contents of the message. Vakoch's comments have to do with deciphering alien communications, not detecting them. Encryption has nothing to do with why we have not detected any (confirmed) alien signals. This has nothing to do with Snowden as a person, other than to note that he lacks relevant expertise in radio astronomy, SETI, etc. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:DUE should not be abused, please see argument 1 and 2 under "Defending the Encryption section against WP:UNDUE" above; WP:NOTNEWS is totally irrelevant, i am not even going to address it, its relevant to events, people, diary. hypothetical "Encryption Explanation" addresses your concerns about magic this way: "Advancement of Encryption technology eventually allows aliens to not only hide the content of their communication but also hide the fact that communication is happening or ever happened by making their communication indistinguishable from background noise". regarding your interpretation of what Douglas Vakoch said, please provide quote from his interview with Live Science that support that. SimulatedZero (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Your numbered comments about WP:DUE above do not accurately summarize the policy, which begins, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." Can you provide peer-reviewed sources to indicate that this viewpoint has been academically evaluated if not accepted? WP:NOTNEWS is relevant if the only sources presented are "news of the day" stories following an off-the-cuff comment by Snowden. VQuakr (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: right now 23 Hypothetical explanations are included into the article, how many of them have peer-reviewed sources to indicate that those viewpoints have been academically evaluated if not accepted??? We should not keep ideas that we don't agree personally to the highest standard possible and relax standards on ideas we personally like. if the standard is lowered because we are cataloging hypothetical explanations for a paradox then it should be lowered for all significant viewpoints. SimulatedZero (talk) 08:14, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

No one mentioned personal disagreement with any viewpoint being a factor. While I glanced at the article and didn't immediately see any items with such poor sourcing as you imply, WP:DUE is comparison with levels of acceptance within the relevant field, not with the degree of sourcing currently existing in the article. As the editor proposing an addition, the WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus for the inclusion, which in this case includes showing that mention in the article is due. VQuakr (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr:I want to emphasize that your answer to: How many of included 23 Hypothetical explanations have peer-reviewed sources? was NOT: All of them. how can we not include "Encryption Explanation" viewpoint when we already included other viewpoints with equal or less levels of acceptance within the relevant field?? WP:DUE is mirror of WP:UNDUE, both are addressing the same concept in a positive and negative way. I already fully addressed the issue of weight, please see argument 1 and 2 and 3 under "Defending the Encryption section against WP:UNDUE" above; if more people bring up WP:DUE then i will write a numbered WP:DUE section specially for people who are challenged by mirrors.SimulatedZero (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

...we already included other viewpoints with equal or less levels of acceptance within the relevant field? You haven't demonstrated this. I see a numbered post that you say addressed WP:DUE, but I don't see where you actually demonstrated any level of acceptance in the scientific community relative to the other sections in the article. Also, see WP:REHASH regarding referencing previous posts. VQuakr (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Right, because the "UFO Conspiracy" theory, "They Are Too Alien" theory, and "Water world" hypothesis have been so thoroughly sourced within the relevant field. Give me a break.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Unbesorgt (talk • contribs) 07:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Defending the person who first (to our knowledge so far) publicly suggested the "Encryption Explanation" against discrediting.

1) Edward Snowden is a polarizing persona, some people hate him because of their own Patriotism, some people love him because he exposed well hidden crimes against Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. therefore i argue that many people are bias toward him and can not remain neutral.

2) I am gonna state only publicly known facts here, Edward Snowden worked for NSA and CIA; NSA recruits top scientists in the field of Cryptography and swears them into secrecy; NSA is responsible for creation of SHA-1, SHA-2 and many other advancement in Encryption technology; Edward Snowden had access to thousands of documents some written by NSA scientists as he provided them to select journalists. therefore i argue even due public doesn't know what kind of education and training he received during his professional work for NSA and CIA, we know he had access not only to public scientific resources regarding Cryptography but also to well protected secret scientific research within NSA. are you sure this doesn't make him a rare and credible source?

3) Edward Snowden publicly showed extreme proficiency in the field of Cryptography and ability to practically utilize cutting edge Encryption to gather leaked documents, secretly communicate with journalists and protect the documents while handing them to select group of journalist.

4) Is it fair to hold one source to highest standards possible because we hate him personally and then hold other sources to a much more relaxed standard??? I argue there are many other already included explanations for the paradox with sources with equal or less credibility. how can we not accept Edward Snowden as a credible source when we already accepted other sources with same or less credibility? SimulatedZero (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Glancing above, I do not see where anyone has said we shouldn't cite Snowden as an expert because of our patriotism as editors. I also don't see any WP:BLP violations despite your claim of "discrediting". The subject of this article is related to SETI; is Snowden an expert in that field? He objectively is not an expert, in the way we usually use the word on Wikipedia, in crypography, either: he has some education past a GED but no diploma as far as I can tell. A crypographic expert would typically have an advanced degree in that field. He is famous for the 2013 leaks, not for his expertise. As a side note, you don't need to bluelink everything in your talk page posts. It just makes them harder to read, especially with all the repetition. VQuakr (talk) 01:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Argument number 1 under Defending against discrediting, is designed to make it clear that strong emotional bias toward him is present, in no way I intended to insult your patriotism or anyone else's patriotism, if you read it again there is no mention of editors there, the argument is simply talking about people in general. SimulatedZero (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok... but preemptively defending against an argument that hasn't been made is not the same thing as a rationale for inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 04:07, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Quote: he has some education past a GED but no diploma as far as I can tell. Does it really make sense to you that someone with no good education hold such a position in NSA and CIA?? You are making the wrong assumption that, education ends where professional carrier starts. I speculate that a diploma only helps people to get through the door of NSA and CIA. to actually work there people should go through their highly classified education and training programs. knowledge of who attended those programs is classified. how many people on the planet do you think can copy thousands of documents from an organisation with highest security possible and don't get caught?? this is direct evidence that Snowden is highly proficient in his field.SimulatedZero (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

He had access to large amounts of information, that doesn't make him an expert at cryptography let alone astrobiology. See also WP:SYNTH; I know this isn't explicitly regarding article content but you are relying far too heavily on your own analysis. VQuakr (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

As far as standards, how about we go with the high side of average?
Most of our references aren't peer-viewed. And since SETI is an inter-disciplinary field, there's not going to be a bunch of specifically "SETI experts." FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

With The Intercept article (4 below).

How Scientists Search the Cosmos for Encrypted Alien Signals (And Other Ones Too), Micah Lee, Oct. 5, 2015:
" . . If scientists find a radio signal that can’t occur naturally (as far as we know), and that’s a narrow-band emission . . "

And that seems to be the crux of this article, that narrow-band would mean intelligence, even if we couldn't decipher the content.
@SimulatedZero:, I will try to take a look at the Doug Vakoch article. @Crossroads:, I really think we can use good journalistic sources in addition to academic sources. In fact, I think a variety of sources makes for a stronger article. Especially since SETI and Fermi Paradox are between and betwixt types of subject. And not quite sure how "encryption" has become this hugely controversial topic . . . but oh well, always welcome a good, healthy discussion! :-) FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter, academic sources are preferred on Wikipedia. WP:NEWSORG states, Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics. WP:SCHOLARSHIP says, Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible...Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. This is all for good reason. News media are notorious for misunderstanding research, because they are not experts in the fields they report on. In this case, many of them did not understand that the encryption explanation makes no sense. Some did and debunked it, but that was a flash in the pan (WP:NOTNEWS) and made no impact on scholarship. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:56, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads:, I'm going to use a phrase and I hope you'll say, Amen, yes, that's an issue. And the phrase is "ghost journals." It's not quite fraud, but it is gray area in which academic journals are for money and are awfully skimpy on the peer review. And this has been written about by reputable scholars. The upshot is that I'd rather use a journalistic source I'm familiar with rather than an "academic" source which has a fancy title but which I know little about. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

There are lots of lists of predatory journals online, and if you are having trouble evaluating a specific journal you can take it to WP:RSN. "I've heard of it" is an insufficient reason to judge a source reliable in a specific context, and the inverse is also true. Having heard of a news source is inadequate reason to ignore our guidelines on reliability. VQuakr (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: How about this: If you or I have heard of a source, that's merely the first of many steps in evaluating it. And we also have:

"The Covert World of People Trying to Edit Wikipedia—for Pay", The Atlantic, Joe Pinsker, Aug. 11, 2015.

Meaning, our Wikipedia may be a wilder and woolier place than we often think it is. So, as a (partial) remedy, I don't think we're going to go too far afield if we use good, middle-of-the-road news sources such as BBC or CNN (even if their writers make the occasional mistake in science). I personally favor using a much broader range of good journalistic sources, and I suppose we can discuss that on a case-by-case basis. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: I've noticed that you keep bringing things up that don't appear to be germane to the argument. What does the existence of UPEs (Undisclosed Paid Editors) have to do with predatory journals, or the fact that peer reviewed journals are better sources on science than news? Please clarify the relevance, if you will. Geogene (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Geogene: This is a very valid question. My answer basically is that if we’re going to go the route of Presbyterian purity and move at a snail’s pace of “only the best,” we should be fully aware of what the cost is likely will be. And so, I think it’s fine and indeed helpful to use the BBC, The Los Angeles Times, etc, in addition to academic sources. And plus, myself and other editors are less likely to make a mistake in summarizing a journalism article than we are with an academic source. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This is already discussed in WP:SCIRS#Popular press. Using reliable popular science articles to supplement academic sources, especially for development of non-technical summaries, is not a new or contentious idea. Your earlier suggestion to use popular science or news articles instead of academic sources is a non-starter, though. Local consensus is inadequate to override site-wide consensus reflected in our policies and guidelines. Changes at that level should happen at WP:VP/P or the relevant policy/guideline talk page. VQuakr (talk) 01:53, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: having heard of a source maybe shortcuts the first step of researching a source (I don't need to look up Science or Cell or The New York Times to familiarize myself with what they are), but is isn't the first step itself - a source it now automatically better or worse because I've heard of it. If you are suggesting that WP:NEWSORG should be changed then you are in the wrong forum. Meanwhile, academic sources remain the best option for academic subjects for the reasons discussed at that guideline and at WP:SCIRS. VQuakr (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr:But we also have the goal of using secondary sources. Meaning, we're almost always pursuing multiple goals at the same time, right? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: and? The relevance of your previous post is unclear. VQuakr (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@VQuakr: Many journal articles are a primary source and report original research. And therefore, by mechanically following one policy of preferring academic sources, we are directly going against another policy of preferring secondary sources. In medical topics, this is solved by using review articles. But I don't think SETI is near far along as a field to have anywhere near an adequate number of review articles. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The solution to the quandary is to focus on sources that are both secondary and academic. You're right about review articles being very good and that SETI is not far along as a field. But, secondary sources do exist. Published scholarly books also make excellent secondary sources. Primary sources can still be used sometimes, and some sources are part primary and part secondary. This is all covered at WP:PSTS. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@FriendlyRiverOtter: Sorry, I was going to answer and I forgot. Aside from the suggestions already given, you can see if a journal is listed in Scopus or Web of Science. Generally, legit journals will be listed there and poor ones will not. Also, you can see the impact factor. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: Thank you. So, journals listed in Scopus and Web of Science are generally solid. And because they might run a little slow . . well, other journals might be okay but we'd really have to be careful, would you generally agree? And by the way, I think of myself as the moderate in this discussion! For example, medical writer Don McNeil, Jr. with the New York Times is excellent, and I'm quite impressed with the Internet site Vox. To me, some of you all are rather like a church which thinks it has a lock on the truth, and other churches don't. And plus, we still have the issue of preferring secondary sources, right? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I would be extremely suspicious of any journal not listed in either of those indexes, to the point I would not use them. Journals do publish review articles too, and academic books are great sources. The church comparison is not correct. Academic sources are best because that is where the scrutiny of trained experts is. Pop-media sources can misunderstand the science or present things lopsidedly, as they are not experts and do not know better. As for being a moderate, being partly wrong is better than being totally wrong, but not as good as completely correctly following Wikipedia's guidelines on sourcing best practices. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads:So, I'm going to assume that I'm smarter than Don McNeil of the New York Times? Or, even if you and I are both highly talented (and of course we are!), have we put the same time in? On some medical topics, McNeil may have covered them for the last 10 years. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is clear. For one thing, the vast majority of media sources have not covered something for 10 years. And academic experts have covered not just medicine as a whole, but their specific specialty, and that solely, and often for way more than 10 years. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:11, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: 'Course, WP:MEDRS is for medical topics where we are likely to find ample review articles in professional articles.

And I hope you realize that all this is, ahem, 'academic' because our fellow Wikipedians don't check article sections against references as a general rule. There's a lot of emphasis on the formality of the writing itself, and not so much on the accuracy of the information. It's as if we're winging it. We basically go with the human strengths such as gut feeling and overall impression, and admittedly, usually the result is okay. But we don't supplement this even with skimming a reference and asking: Okay, is the reference saying what we say it does?

Crossroads, I think you did check a section of our article against the reference a few months back, and I thank you. You might do more in this regard than my own modest efforts. I guess we can both just keep doing this for time to time, and hopefully lead by example. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: You remind me of scientists who argued "heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" in 19 century. I know exactly what your problem is, you don't like that "encryption explanation" speculates about advancement of technology that you can't explain. Many of other already included viewpoints speculate about advancement of technology, We did allow it because these hypothetical explanations deal with alien civilizations that might be many many years ahead of us in terms of technology.SimulatedZero (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to point you to WP:AGF and WP:NPA. After that take a look at WP:RS and WP:SYNTH. Also, if something else is poorly sourced in the article we should look at that - saying that justifies adding more poorly sourced material is a WP:OSE argument.

I feel strongly that Snowden is not established as an expert. I agree with VQuakr that SimulatedZero is relying on their own (flawed) analysis as reflected in the mistaken piece I originally quoted above. I think, personally, that encryption sounds possible to my mind but I would like to see just one scientific source that supports it. The best source mentioned so far is Scientific American and they say Snowden was mistaken. In fact a quick search yields many articles stating that Snowden was wrong. Something like frequency hopping spread spectrum sounds more like what I would expect to be mentioned as an example of currently evolving earth technology - but I am not an expert and have not been published in even a popular science magazine. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

SimulatedZero also needs to take a look at WP:IDHT. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Quote: if something else is poorly sourced in the article we should look at that - saying that justifies adding more poorly sourced material is a WP:OSE argument. WP:OSE is an essay and should not be prioritized over official policy. So now you are going to delete viewpoints one by one to be able to abuse WP:UNDUE against encryption viewpoint. how ridicules! Then start deleting more than half of viewpoints that don't have peer-reviewed sources as some of you vigorously demand peer-reviewed source from encryption viewpoint. only then we can make a case for WP:DUE as weight of a viewpoint should be compared to weight of viewpoints already present in the article. Then start deleting viewpoints that have been academically evaluated but not fully accepted as some of you vigorously demand that encryption viewpoint should not only be discussed by scientists but also accepted as a fact. then if any viewpoint remains in our list, we should call it "Accepted explanation" and not "Hypothetical explanation". do you really want me to quote dictionary for "Hypothetical"?? maybe its time to stop being so unfair to encryption viewpoint and start talking about whats the best way to include encryption viewpoint. SimulatedZero (talk) 17:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The Snowden sources aren't just not peer reviewed, better legitimate scientific sources directly say he was wrong. Peer reviewed is not the standard as far as I'm concerned. Snowden just doesn't have anything to offer here. He's pretty much just some random guy who got famous and who the scientific sources are saying was wrong in this specific case. OSE is a well-respected essay and is not in conflict with Wikipedia guidelines and policy. When someone cites an essay they are saying "this reflects the argument I would make but let's save some time." Quickly becoming WP:IDHT territory here as Crossroads indicated. —DIYeditor (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe its time to stop being so unfair to encryption viewpoint and start talking about whats the best way to include encryption viewpoint. That presupposes consensus on inclusion of this material, which you rather clearly do not have. VQuakr (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

In looking at it, I find it surprising that nowhere in our entire article do we mention the topic of encryption, at all. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

It's because scholarly sources on the Fermi Paradox don't mention encryption, at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Crossroads: because scholarly sources on the Fermi Paradox don't mention encryption, at all. you sound so sure about this, I didn't know you speak all human languages and have access to all scholarly sources on the planet! Chances are than when we add encryption explanation to the article, a Russian speaking contributor read it and remember some professor talked about it years ago and might put an effort to dig it out of his university archive. Also consider that SETI scientists might have a strong conflict of interest to talk about encryption publicly, this explanation dramatically reduces the chances of finding alien civilizations and can directly affects their future funding. SimulatedZero (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@SimulatedZero:, I think Crossroads has a reasonable point, and plus, I think I was the one who said "at all" first. :-| I'll tell you, I've done two separate forays of serious Google searching for SETI, encryption, encrypted, aliens, various permutations thereof, and only found Edward and those disagreeing with him. And wasn't what Edward said just an off-the-cuff answer he gave to Neil deGrasse Tyson? I mean, it's not like he had a chance to carefully think through his views about the possibility of alien life and potential communication. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Really, no real arguments? Snowden is both wrong and right here. https://twitter.com/lambdaprog/status/1222648701832912896?s=19 (wrong) and wifi ofdm/bluetooth (right, because it is a ofdm signal and for bluetooth the frequency just jumps very fast in sync) are 2 examples. But! Snowden knows nothing about high Watt transivers/sattellites and well, it is not encryption, it is modulation/manipulation. 2A00:1FA0:428D:1093:75E4:AC94:C14A:15ED (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia!  :-) And, feel free to jump in and try to find a reference or two. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

References

"Lack of desire" (sociological) section

IMHO the article should be more along the lines of "Explanation for the absence of extraterrestrials on earth" (1975). In particular "sociological explanations" should be grouped together, and it should include the prominent argument made in the paper (and elsewhere) that a lot of the proposed explanations require swallowing that many thousands of civilizations all decide to behave in the exact same seemingly-idiosyncratic way. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rolf h nelson: this is Michael Hart’s big 1975 paper, right? By all means, please jump in. If there’s an argument you think is highly significant that we’re not covering, please move ahead with plans to include it. Maybe do a couple of searches first for a key word or phrase in our article, but please don’t get bogged. Our article is not perfect by any stretch.

I personally find a page number included with a reference to be highly helpful, but I don’t think that’s an official rule or anything.

And I think you, and Hart, are largely correct in this argument. If there are in fact a 1,000+ tech societies, the chance that they’d all follow one particular sociological path is pretty slim indeed.

Now, sometimes I think a writer is enthused about their own idea and want to see it get due credit. And then it can be blurry-blendy whether they’re saying this applies in all cases, or merely a big chunk of cases. Obviously, the second is the much more reasonable hypothesis. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

The Fermi paradox, for example as popularized in Sagan's influential Cosmos (1980), is often framed as "there should be a giant number of civs in our galaxy alone"; the Hart argument is that just cutting it by a factor of even 100 doesn't significantly address the core problem. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Sagan was a big-time optimist! I think I remembering reading where he wrote that his best estimate was that there are a million technological societies in the Milky Way Galaxy right now. Wow. And yeah, if we take a 1/100th of that, it’s still 10,000. And vanishing unlikely that all ten thousand will have even similar sociology.

All the same, I liked Carl Sagan. I liked his unique way of speaking (which might have been the result of childhood allergies?). And I respect and admire his efforts to explain scientific concepts to interested lay persons. And he had the ability and skills to do so without excessively dumbing things down. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

An optimally-compressed data transmission may be indistinguishable from background noise

The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence, Paul Davies (chair of SETI Post-Detection Taskgroup), New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2010.

page 181:

" . . But the optimal data transmission rate is one that has no patterns whatsoever, and is therefore random. Randomness does not mean nonsense. If one has the key to decode the message, the information is optimally packaged. Without the key, however, the message would just come across as a form of noise. . "

" . . Would we know whether some of the cacophony of the universe is in fact optimally encoded messages from distant civilizations, and not natural scrambling? The short answer is that, without the code, we wouldn't know. . "

page 182:

" . . but other features might give the game away. For example, if the signal was bright enough to rise above the background noise, was narrow band in frequency, and emanated from a nearby star with a known Earth-like planet, we would definitely take notice. . "

This is one of the rejoinders to Snowden from above, basically, that narrow band = alien (or, at least high probability). Of course, the features of significantly brighter than background and from star with Earth-like planet would also be real attention-getters.

And Paul Davies is a SETI person. At the time of this book in 2010, he was chair of the SETI Post-Detection Taskgroup. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

This isn't relevant. Fermi paradox is about detecting signals, not decoding them. As you note the signals would still be detectable. VQuakr (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Narrow band would be detectable. But the part in which Davies talks about an optimally compressed message being indistinguishable from the cacophony of the universe, well, that’s all about detection and thus squarely in the realm of the Fermi Paradox. In fact, it’s a pretty good solution and one we almost certainly should list. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Here’s beginning of the third quote from above:

" . . If the signal is not directed at us specifically then it may lack any attention-grabbing hook, but other features might give the game away. . "

Davies is saying, either we might not be able to figure out that an optimally-encoded message is different from background noise . . . or there might be other features which “give the game away,” such as narrow band. It can be either way.

I moved this to its own section because, even though I strongly suspect a tech society will use both encryption and data compression, the two are separate concepts. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Already addressed. Fermi paradox is about detecting signals, not decoding them. If a signal is not brighter than background it would not be detectable anyways. VQuakr (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

But per Wiki norms, we don’t get to overrule a SETI scientist with our own personal viewpoints, wouldn’t you generally agree?

And if we’re doing something fancy, we’re probably doing it wrong. And same for making a huge project out of something.

I really think Wikipedia at its best is when we work in a steady, day-in day-out fashion. That’s how we most often build up something really good, as we in fact have generally done with our Fermi Paradox article. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

We're not overruling a scientist. Your proposed content is negated a page later in the same source. It isn't relevant to the subject of this article. VQuakr (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

It’s not negated. Davies is saying other aspects of the radio waves might give the game away, or presumably, they might not. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

“The Physical Limits of Communication, or Why any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from noise,” American Journal of Physics, Michael Lachmann, Mark Newman, Cristopher Moore, 2004.

Editors can (and often should) block the addition of too many WP:PRIMARY sources (which Davies' musings arguably are), or WP:SYNTH (if Davies isn't directly talking about the Fermi paradox, I haven't looked at the source myself). There's a fairly large gray area in which the burden is on you to be patient and take the time to get WP:CONSENSUS for your proposed changes. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

We now have this second source, talking about the more technical aspects. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

No SETI has looked for "A, B, C..." in radio signals. They've looked for unnatural spectra. Again, this is adequately explained by Davies in the source provided to make clear this isn't a viewpoint relevant to this article. You can't imply Davies says something is a contributor to the Fermi paradox when on the next page he clarifies why it isn't. The AJP article doesn't appear to mention SETI. VQuakr (talk) 00:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)