Text 1: Astronomer Park argues that the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI) deserves serious continued investment. The discovery of even a single alien signal, she writes, would be among the most consequential events in human history. The cost of listening is small relative to the potential reward.
Text 2: Physicist Park does not dispute the magnitude of a possible discovery but questions the reasoning. Decades of searches, she notes, have detected nothing; the Drake equation parameters that predict abundant civilizations are unknown to within many orders of magnitude. "Worth it because the prize is huge" arguments, she contends, can justify almost anything if probability estimates are treated as flexible.
Based on the texts, how would Physicist Park (Text 2) most likely respond to Astronomer Park's reasoning?
- A
She would propose that all astronomy be defunded.
- B
She would agree that any nonzero probability justifies the investment.
- C
She would deny the importance of any conceivable alien discovery.
- Dcheck_circle
She would argue that without grounded probability estimates, the huge reward argument is too easy.
Explanation
Physicist Park targets the reasoning structure (huge reward times unknown probability). B captures this. A reverses her view; C and D overstate.