BigBallinStalin wrote:Right, I understand that, but I don't understand the "Drake's bullshit" variable at the end--or rather, I don't understand the implied criticism about the equation being bullshit...
It's the most vague part of the equation. He basically have to guess how long he thinks a civilisation lasts before it goes under. That number may be impossible to even vaguely estimate without having already encountered several, not just one, but several alien civilisations. The number he himself estimated was lower than what common sense probably will tell you, and that's been the basis for some of the criticism he's recieved. He put the number at 482 years, after 482 years of broadcasting it's presence, the average civilisation perishes. Don't make me go into detail how he derived that, all I know is that it was very unscientific. Okay I'll say a little, he based his assumptions on how long different civilisations on earth have managed to make it. I have no idea why he thinks that was compatible to alien civilisations. To wrap it up:
If filled with correct information "The Drake Equation" can produce a vague estimate of the number of civilisations in our galaxy with similar or exceding technology as us. If accurate information is not available (as it is right now) the estimate will just be too vague for any conclusions to be drawn. Nonetheless, there's nothing wrong with the equation, it serves us little good right now, but maybe in a couple of hundred years, when we might be able to more accurately estimate the value of these variables, it can be used (if perhaps a bit modified) to give us a good insight into how rare alien civilisation are.
This all presumes we're not alone in the galaxy, neverless the universe, and of course, we can't be sure that we aren't alone until we find some other life out there.