RIP Frank Drake

[skeeterm5]

Worth a mention that Frank Drake passed away.

Famous for the Drake equation

[Eric Mc]

I've always liked the Drake Equation. Since I first read about it around 45 years ago, I would say some of the variables have been pinned down a bit more accurately now.

[Skeptisk]

Eric Mc said:

I've always liked the Drake Equation. Since I first read about it around 45 years ago, I would say some of the variables have been pinned down a bit more accurately now.

I’ve always thought the opposite. To be frank it is the most pointless equation I’ve seen and barely worth calling an equation when some of the terms are fundamentally unknowable but also fundamental to the result so every value of the equation is pretty much equally valid or invalid. So it tells us absolutely nothing and solves nothing. How is that useful?

[Simpo Two]

Skeptisk said:

I’ve always thought the opposite. To be frank it is the most pointless equation I’ve seen and barely worth calling an equation when some of the terms are fundamentally unknowable but also fundamental to the result so every value of the equation is pretty much equally valid or invalid. So it tells us absolutely nothing and solves nothing. How is that useful?

But it makes us aware of the number of variables. It's more of a list than an equation, but you can have fun putting in numbers and seeing what happens.

[skeeterm5]

Simpo Two said:

But it makes us aware of the number of variables. It's more of a list than an equation, but you can have fun putting in numbers and seeing what happens.

The one bit I always thought it missed was time.

Whatever numbers you put in you always tend to get a reasonably high answer, but it doesn’t equate for co-existence in time. So with, say, 400 civilisations lasting 2m years each the chances of them being around at the same time is minuscule.

[eharding]

Simpo Two said:

Skeptisk said:

I’ve always thought the opposite. To be frank it is the most pointless equation I’ve seen and barely worth calling an equation when some of the terms are fundamentally unknowable but also fundamental to the result so every value of the equation is pretty much equally valid or invalid. So it tells us absolutely nothing and solves nothing. How is that useful?

But it makes us aware of the number of variables. It's more of a list than an equation, but you can have fun putting in numbers and seeing what happens.

Indeed - and whilst it was always understood that the confidence factors in the variables diminished as you went from left to right, in the sixty years since the equation was published we've come a long way in being able to have empirical values for the first few, and since we also have a current observed value the left hand term N (zip, nada, nowt, fckall, none) we can have some more informed conjecture about the remaining unknown values.

[skeeterm5]

And it does reduce the complex question to something that everybody can understand and also play with,

[Simpo Two]

skeeterm5 said:

The one bit I always thought it missed was time.

Whatever numbers you put in you always tend to get a reasonably high answer, but it doesn’t equate for co-existence in time. So with, say, 400 civilisations lasting 2m years each the chances of them being around at the same time is minuscule.

Well congrats, you just invented the Skeeterm Equation, aka Improved Drake!