link: https://www.labxchange.org/library/items/lb:HarvardX:68789c56:lx_simulation:1?fullscreen=true
The most surprising or memorable piece of information I learned from Prof. Goodman's interview with Jill Tarter is actually how the Drake Equation, as noted by Tarter, predicts "nothing" but serves as a method to organize our ignorance. To further explain, the reason for this is that the uncertainty in each term of the equation is too large, resulting in unreliable solutions derived from this equation. Furthermore, in such scenarios, we are advised to rely on observations rather than theory. This makes me question whether a theory is necessary to arrive at a reasonable solution, especially when the usefulness of the Drake Equation is still a matter of debate. To me, theorems always signify something that is set in stone, or at least developed through extensive studies and confirmation of results. However, this discussion has surprised me by highlighting how uncertainties in theories can be reduced over time, thereby suggesting that ignorance can also diminish over time, but the question is to what extent can this be done is still up to scientific debates and disagreements. Yet, the theme of embracing ignorance kicks back in, suggesting that it can, counterintuitively, serve as a valuable tool. This perspective is particularly useful during experimentation and when sifting through the information unearthed through deeper exploration. By acknowledging our ignorance, we open new avenues for inquiry and discovery, narrowing down vast fields of potential knowledge to more specific, insightful findings.