>>>>>…genuinely untestable – then they (scientists) are absolutely guaranteed >>>>>to waste a lot of grant money
>>>So the new definition of science includes a “waste of money” clause.
>>>You don’t get to decide that SETI isn’t science because you consider it a >>>waste of money.
“…guaranteed to waste a lot of grant money.” was nothing more than a my way of saying, “…guaranteed to totally and completely fail to do real science.”
Which tends to be funded by grants.
The context of the discussion should make it perfectly clear why I would say that.
“Wasting money” doesn’t make an endeavor UNscientific. The risk of wasting money is part of the deal.
SETI is not “unscientific.” It is in fact TESTING something – i.e., whether or not there are intelligence-created messages emanating from extraterrestrial civilizations that we can discover.
Considering its success so far, it would appear to be a great example of an endeavor that is both scientific (technically) AND a waste of money.
