That's What You Call A Near Miss!
ChatterBank1 min ago
Life On Mars?
A group of academics say they have identified fossilised sponges, corals, worm eggs, algae and more on the surface of Mars, and say life there may even be thriving today.
“We have photos of fungi growing out of the ground, increasing in size, increasing in number, as based on sequential images,” said Dr Rudolph Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, speaking on behalf of the researchers.
Finding life somewhere other than Earth would have major implications for humanity, proving for the first time that we are not alone in the universe. And if life is present so close to home, it opens fascinating questions as to what life might be like further afield.
“Definitive proof would tell us we are not alone,” added Dr Schild. “We could assume that life has evolved on innumerable Earth-like planets.
“This then raises questions about the antiquity of life. There are planets and Solar Systems that are billions of years older than our own. What if human-like life evolved on those planets billions of years ago? The implications are staggering and humbling.”
https:/
Exciting stuff? I think so. What say you?
“We have photos of fungi growing out of the ground, increasing in size, increasing in number, as based on sequential images,” said Dr Rudolph Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, speaking on behalf of the researchers.
Finding life somewhere other than Earth would have major implications for humanity, proving for the first time that we are not alone in the universe. And if life is present so close to home, it opens fascinating questions as to what life might be like further afield.
“Definitive proof would tell us we are not alone,” added Dr Schild. “We could assume that life has evolved on innumerable Earth-like planets.
“This then raises questions about the antiquity of life. There are planets and Solar Systems that are billions of years older than our own. What if human-like life evolved on those planets billions of years ago? The implications are staggering and humbling.”
https:/
Exciting stuff? I think so. What say you?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// Clare, I’d venture to remind you that quite a lot could be said to have failed a basic standard quality control check initially ... //
Indeed. But there's a warped and twisted logic if, in effect, the worse a result "looks" according to even a relatively minimal scientific scrutiny, the more seriously it should be taken.
In practice, it's usually the opposite: stuff passes the "basic quality control check" that should not. A recent example is the report of high-temperature superconductivity (HTS). I won't clutter this thread with the details, but HTS if confirmed would be genuinely revolutionary. On the other hand, it seems that the recent papers on the subject, at least one of which made Nature, may have had fraudulent data. That's just one of countless examples where, basically, it's precisely the lack of scrutiny
Indeed. But there's a warped and twisted logic if, in effect, the worse a result "looks" according to even a relatively minimal scientific scrutiny, the more seriously it should be taken.
In practice, it's usually the opposite: stuff passes the "basic quality control check" that should not. A recent example is the report of high-temperature superconductivity (HTS). I won't clutter this thread with the details, but HTS if confirmed would be genuinely revolutionary. On the other hand, it seems that the recent papers on the subject, at least one of which made Nature, may have had fraudulent data. That's just one of countless examples where, basically, it's precisely the lack of scrutiny
Hit enter too soon...
... where it's precisely the lack of scrutiny that allowed something to go further than it should.
Mainstream science is inherently conservative. But it *has* to be. It's not about killing curiosity, it's about tempering it to make sure that only the robust survives; the work that survives this process benefits from it. For all your criticism about the mainstream of science, I think it's that point that you miss. You need to be curious, still, but you also need to be careful.
... where it's precisely the lack of scrutiny that allowed something to go further than it should.
Mainstream science is inherently conservative. But it *has* to be. It's not about killing curiosity, it's about tempering it to make sure that only the robust survives; the work that survives this process benefits from it. For all your criticism about the mainstream of science, I think it's that point that you miss. You need to be curious, still, but you also need to be careful.
Clare, //For all your criticism about the mainstream of science, I think it's that point that you miss. You need to be curious, still, but you also need to be careful.//
I don't believe your point has been missed but for the purposes of this discussion 'dismissed' is more practical. So we need to be careful? Careful of what? When we're discussing on a minor website the possibility of life having existed, or continuing to exist on another planet, missing the point you insist on making - at eye-watering length - does no harm at all. In fact it's something that may, for the purposes of this discussion, be deliberately avoided because it changes absolutely nothing. We've been here before in this section and your attitude has, in the past, sent posters scurrying, never to return. In your efforts to control the discussion in favour of your own opinion, this is not the first time you have demolished what could have been a pleasant exchange of ideas. Once again we find ourselves bombarded with a relentless lecture and admonished for our failure to disregard the subject matter because you take yourself too seriously and say we should - even though, quite bizarrely, you concede that life may have existed on Mars and perhaps still does - the crux of the whole discussion.
We haven't 'been had', Clare - there is no purpose in these scientists trying to trick the world - and if we have 'been had' the fact is, here on AB, it doesn't matter one iota. It doesn't actually matter on any public forum. The world isn't going to implode because people have their own opinions on the possibility of life existing on Mars - something no one knows the answer to. One of these days we will find out if we were right or wrong - and it won't matter a jot then either. It will still be what it is.
I don't believe your point has been missed but for the purposes of this discussion 'dismissed' is more practical. So we need to be careful? Careful of what? When we're discussing on a minor website the possibility of life having existed, or continuing to exist on another planet, missing the point you insist on making - at eye-watering length - does no harm at all. In fact it's something that may, for the purposes of this discussion, be deliberately avoided because it changes absolutely nothing. We've been here before in this section and your attitude has, in the past, sent posters scurrying, never to return. In your efforts to control the discussion in favour of your own opinion, this is not the first time you have demolished what could have been a pleasant exchange of ideas. Once again we find ourselves bombarded with a relentless lecture and admonished for our failure to disregard the subject matter because you take yourself too seriously and say we should - even though, quite bizarrely, you concede that life may have existed on Mars and perhaps still does - the crux of the whole discussion.
We haven't 'been had', Clare - there is no purpose in these scientists trying to trick the world - and if we have 'been had' the fact is, here on AB, it doesn't matter one iota. It doesn't actually matter on any public forum. The world isn't going to implode because people have their own opinions on the possibility of life existing on Mars - something no one knows the answer to. One of these days we will find out if we were right or wrong - and it won't matter a jot then either. It will still be what it is.
// ... even though, quite bizarrely, you concede that life may have existed on Mars and perhaps still does - the crux of the whole discussion. //
The whole discussion started by asking if *this*, as in the specific announcement was "exciting stuff". I've laid out at length why it is not, and I make no apology for doing so. There's nothing bizarre about separating the specific from the general.
Also, I've tried to contribute positively to the discussion by, for example, linking two other recent papers on the topic: one laying out various things to look for, and another laying out various things to be careful of. But, even if you didn't look at them, I hope the mere existence of those papers show that there are multiple scientists curious enough about the prospects of finding life (either existing or long-dead) on Mars to continue researching it.
We may never agree on the philosophy of what counts as "contributing to the discussion". Still, evaluating the merits, or otherwise, of a given paper or article, or whatever, clearly adds to it.
The whole discussion started by asking if *this*, as in the specific announcement was "exciting stuff". I've laid out at length why it is not, and I make no apology for doing so. There's nothing bizarre about separating the specific from the general.
Also, I've tried to contribute positively to the discussion by, for example, linking two other recent papers on the topic: one laying out various things to look for, and another laying out various things to be careful of. But, even if you didn't look at them, I hope the mere existence of those papers show that there are multiple scientists curious enough about the prospects of finding life (either existing or long-dead) on Mars to continue researching it.
We may never agree on the philosophy of what counts as "contributing to the discussion". Still, evaluating the merits, or otherwise, of a given paper or article, or whatever, clearly adds to it.
Also:
// We haven't 'been had', Clare - there is no purpose in these scientists trying to trick the world ... //
This is unbelievably naive. Firstly, scientists, or people masquerading as such, try to trick the world all the time. Be it for fame, or money, or attention, or whatever. Even those who get found out somehow often end up still getting devoted followers -- especially if their trickery was based on apparently speaking out against some mainstream conspiracy.
Secondly, even those who aren't dishonest may end up being incompetent, or at least careless, or perhaps too eager to announce an exciting result that they failed to apply the proper self-scrutiny themselves. In that sense, the people writing the paper were fooling themselves first, and never intended to be deceitful, or to "trick the world", but still ended up being wrong. The most famous example is possibly the "N Ray", which was a false discovery by otherwise capable French physicist Prosper-René Blondlot, although there are countless others. Other, more recent examples might be the "faster-than-light neutrinos" result, from a decade or so ago. That was traced, I think, to a faulty wire connection or something of the like, but nevertheless, scientists at CERN of all places got over-excited and under-cautious, and got everything worked up over nothing.
Incidentally, the guy I mentioned got back to me. "Complete *** I'm afraid".
Maybe you should just pick better studies to get excited about.
// We haven't 'been had', Clare - there is no purpose in these scientists trying to trick the world ... //
This is unbelievably naive. Firstly, scientists, or people masquerading as such, try to trick the world all the time. Be it for fame, or money, or attention, or whatever. Even those who get found out somehow often end up still getting devoted followers -- especially if their trickery was based on apparently speaking out against some mainstream conspiracy.
Secondly, even those who aren't dishonest may end up being incompetent, or at least careless, or perhaps too eager to announce an exciting result that they failed to apply the proper self-scrutiny themselves. In that sense, the people writing the paper were fooling themselves first, and never intended to be deceitful, or to "trick the world", but still ended up being wrong. The most famous example is possibly the "N Ray", which was a false discovery by otherwise capable French physicist Prosper-René Blondlot, although there are countless others. Other, more recent examples might be the "faster-than-light neutrinos" result, from a decade or so ago. That was traced, I think, to a faulty wire connection or something of the like, but nevertheless, scientists at CERN of all places got over-excited and under-cautious, and got everything worked up over nothing.
Incidentally, the guy I mentioned got back to me. "Complete *** I'm afraid".
Maybe you should just pick better studies to get excited about.
Clare, //The whole discussion started by asking if *this*, as in the specific announcement was "exciting stuff". I've laid out at length why it is not...//
I disagree. I think the prospect of finding life on another planet very exciting indeed…. but the man did say 'if' so even though we know the jury is out, neither that - nor anything else - should stop us discussing the possibility.
I didn't say some scientists don't try to pull the wool over eyes … I know without doubt that some do …. but Is Dr Schild masquerading as a scientist? I don’t think so.
I disagree. I think the prospect of finding life on another planet very exciting indeed…. but the man did say 'if' so even though we know the jury is out, neither that - nor anything else - should stop us discussing the possibility.
I didn't say some scientists don't try to pull the wool over eyes … I know without doubt that some do …. but Is Dr Schild masquerading as a scientist? I don’t think so.
There are a few candidates for life in our solar system, to be sure. I think a few moons of Saturn could, or Europa, no doubt others.
I think there has been a debate about whether even to go looking, though -- not because it would be a waste of time, but because the very act of searching for, and finding, life might disturb it. For example, due to the risk of cross-contamination from Earth-based organisms, or because any "sample" of extra-terrestrial life might inevitably mean killing that particular sample.
I highly doubt Earth is the only place in the galaxy with life, and I wouldn't be too shocked if it weren't even the only place in the Solar System. For my part, in spite of the paragraph above, I think it's worth looking. As long as we do our utmost to be careful.
I think there has been a debate about whether even to go looking, though -- not because it would be a waste of time, but because the very act of searching for, and finding, life might disturb it. For example, due to the risk of cross-contamination from Earth-based organisms, or because any "sample" of extra-terrestrial life might inevitably mean killing that particular sample.
I highly doubt Earth is the only place in the galaxy with life, and I wouldn't be too shocked if it weren't even the only place in the Solar System. For my part, in spite of the paragraph above, I think it's worth looking. As long as we do our utmost to be careful.
