Of course it’s serious science, it’s just thinking about statistics. Of course most of the values are unknown right now, as we are just starting our survey of exoplanets. But it raises lots of questions, and those are good for science.

I don't see how it meets even a single step of the scientific method. You can call it a somewhat scientific thought experiment, if such a thing even exists, but that's about it.

It is pretty easy to use it generate and test hypotheses, which is frequently done and published in the literature. Common examples include radio and other EM surveys for extraterrestrial signals.

By your definition, "Calculus" is highly unscientific.

Calculus owes some of its development to its use in scientific theories, but also stands alone as a branch of math. One can approach it as a pure exercise in symbol manipulation (as I did as a student).

Without trying to precisely define scientific methodology, I think it always needs some connection to empirical evidence. This is the problem with the Drake equation, but also with some other speculative fields like string theory.

So I'd say that the Drake equation is scientific in the sense that it's motivated by scientific speculation, but has not yet found a form that can be tested.

I always thought it was a bit of a lark. You multiply a whole bunch of unknowns with huge errors bars together to get a totally new unknown with universe sized error bars.

Yep, it's really silly. It's really just saying we don't know, and here's a breakdown of all the reasons that we don't know.

It seems fine to me. Even if you don't think it's "serious" enough for you, it's a scientific way to organize an explanation of the world and it's very famous.

I think a journalist wanted to convey the concept of "well-known" coupled with a sense of respect. I sense the word choice made sense in a thesaurus.

Sure, why not?

In terms of renown, it is probably it the top equations people would be able to recognize by name, and tell you what it is about. The only equations that might be more recognizable by name are the Pythagorean theorem, ideal gas law, and perhaps some Newtons laws of motion.

In terms of scientific relevance, It is a tool for examining what many people consider the single most important questions ever asked.

It's nowhere close. The quadratic equation, pthagorean theorem. Heros law, and a hundred other more simple equations are more famous.

It’s interesting to see how much work people seem to think that framing the Drake equation as a “thought experiment” does.

If it’s a thought experiment, stop calling it an “equation”. People hear that something is an equation and they think that there’s real math and science involved. Call it the “Drake Conjecture” or something.

I think that when it was originated, it was close to being in the same condition the Schroedinger equation was when it was originated. He basically pulled it out of his ... thin air as well. It got attention because of its heuristic value - and 'felt right' (not a factor to be overlooked).

To this day, as WP notes, 'It is typically not possible to solve the Schrödinger equation exactly for situations of physical interest.' Yet he got a Nobel prize for it. Frank used his equation to get us thinking about SETI, and SETI is now decades old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

> Does anyone even consider it serious science?

Yes, just like there are people who consider Crystal Power serious science. A lot of people are deeply impressed by the Drake Equation, presumably because they can't understand it.

What's unserious about it?

Literally every part of it.