>Not sure why this comment got downvoted, but after all this is HN: very pro-tech while at the same time anti-science. Computers do everything so knowledge doesn't matter.

As Dr. Sagan (quite correctly) pointed out:

   Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Whether there's any particular method right now, next week or next year for such "detection" isn't relevant in this context for several reasons:

1. Sagan's example was a metaphor for an unfalsifiable hypothesis;

2. Dragons (okay, kimodo dragons do, but that's orthogonal to the discussion) don't actually exist;

3. Even if dragons with the properties posited by Sagan actually do exist, Evidence must be provided to confirm the "garage dragon" hypothesis or it's irrelevant. If it cannot be detected, it may as well not exist.

While it's true that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," not being able to verify the non-existence of something doesn't confirm its existence.

I suggest you use the rest of the tools provided in Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" (helpfully linked above) to help you get the point.

I'd also point out that the guidelines[0] say:

   Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, 
   and it makes boring reading. 

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html