The article literally addresses every single one of those points and admits our scientific uncertainty.
No, I've actually read this exact article before, and I read through it AGAIN when you posted it. It literally does NOT address the idea that we may be using different forms of communication. What it says is:
If we’re right that there are 100,000 or more intelligent civilizations in our galaxy, and even a fraction of them are sending out radio waves or laser beams or other modes of attempting to contact others, shouldn’t SETI’s satellite array pick up all kinds of signals? SETI has never picked anything up.
Which assumes that a number of civilizations ARE using radio waves or laser beams. It builds off that assumption to assert that if there were a fraction that did, SETI should be "picking stuff up like crazy." Which is incredibly mathematically ignorant, because one,
in order to receive a signal from a planet thousands of light years away, the waves need to be shot at a receiver in such a perfect way that if the angle of the transmitter is a flea's ass hair's distance to the left it will not reach the destination, and two,
There is SO much distance and magnitude between planets that it's entirely possible for transmissions to be whooshing by a tiny speck on planet Earth without EVER making contact.
And THREE, the Wow! Signal was picked up, but hasn't been heard again. It hasn't been proved or disproved whether or not it was of extra terrestrial origin, but all of the "explanations" that laymen come up with are readily debunkable.
You obviously didn't read the article but jumped right into your declaration founded on the belief of your own superiority.
This in itself is a laughable representation of your standard for the scientific method. You read my response and assumed you knew what my position was, and "additionally" decided that it was founded on a belief of superiority.
Additionally, your kind of comment holds no merit. It's easy to talk about why things are wrong and attack their credibility without offering any alternative theory or explanation.
Except that's not what I did. I claimed the Fermi paradox was based on assumptions, and then provided examples of what the assumptions were that the Fermi paradox operates on. That's EXACTLY how peer reviewed science functions. You put forth a theory, other people pick at it and find all the issues in its nooks and crannies. I'm sorry, but they don't have to offer a better theory for yours to be wrong.
FURTHERMORE, I even specified that it was speculative and not based on fact in my original comment. It's a blog, no one is pretending it was printed in a scientific journal.
So if you're fine with the idea that it's speculative and NOT written in a scientific journal, why are you defending it as though it were your baby and I stabbed it in the neck? All I said was that the Fermi Paradox doesn't hold water, and gave instances of why its foundation was flawed. FURTHERMORE, you can't expect a theory built on faulty principles to be sound.
Put your tail feathers away. I wasn't here to fight.