Is There Life on Mars

Mark said:

I wasn't aware that scientist's opinions become invalid after their active career ends.
Click to expand...

If someone hasn't kept up on basic research then they are not the expert like someone else who has. Further, expertise in one area of science does not equal expertise in another field.

Until ACC starts publishing current research on Martian geology that is well-received by his peers in that field, I must conclude that using his name is just an appeal to authority (however dubious) by those who wish these features are trees.


Your "woo woo" comment supports my view that anyone with a differening opinion (on this board) is immediately declared a woo-woo. ACC is hardly a woo-woo. Give me a break.
Click to expand...

It's more than just a "differening opinion" - it crosses the boundary to an extraordinary claim. To state, without any evidence other than visual appearance, that these features are trees instead of the more probable geologic interpretation, is a woo-woo statement. If ACC believes that, then he believes a woo-woo statement. I will retract my comment on him being a woo-woo since I really don't know much about the rest of his opinions and believes. But it doesn't look good, IMO...
 
Mark said:


Yes...but what are those things? I have never heard a convincing explanation (which probably only indicates I haven't looked in the right places). Arthur C. Clarke did express the opinion a while back that they were probably plant life.

So...what are they? Enquiring minds want to know.
Click to expand...

Arthur C. Clarke is a woo-woo when it comes to Mars, I'm afraid. He even believes there were giant glass worms on Mars that dug huge tunnels.

Start here.

If it turns out there is evidence of microscopic life existing, or previously existing, on Mars, it will change the whole Universe. Because if it exists on two neighboring planets, then Life is not as hard to jump-start as previously believed.

I don't believe for one second there is, or was, macroscopic life on Mars.
 
Graham said:


Why not, if you don't mind me asking?

Graham
Click to expand...

Thank you.

"I don't believe in anything. Belief gets in the way of learning." ---Robert Heinlein.

To make such a declarative statement regarding life on Mars implies knowledge you can't possibly have. Much like...dare I say it?---a "woo-woo?"

Again, I am not saying those objects are trees. That would be absurd. I am saying (however unlikely the chance) they could be, and are worth examining in any case. By being too free with the term "woo-woo" you may actually hinder the scientific research you all claim to support.

Take, for example, the scientist (whose name eludes me at the moment...Dr. Van Paradijs? ) who claimed a few years ago that Gamma Ray Bursters had to come from outside the galactic plane. He was declared insane (literally) by some...and that his theory violated the fundamental laws of physics. Turns out he was right, and a whole to path of astronomical research has opened up. So who were the 'woo-woos", I wonder?
 
I don't believe there is, or ever was, life on Mars. That's because the evidence for it is far from compelling.

But if a Mars mission turns up strong evidence for life, that doesn't mean I was wrong. That just means I finally have evidence on which to base an opinion. It's agnosticism, of a sort.
 
I agree with Luke T, that interpreting these images as trees puts one in the woo-woo camp. And yes, ACC has a history of believing other woo-woo things - did anyone ever see his PBS series about psychic phenomena?

Mark, if you say that the images look interesting because of patterns, and you'd like to find out what they are, that's great. But I can dismiss out-of-hand any talk of it being trees, just like I can dismiss the idea that the famous hill on Mars was a human face carved by civilized beings. That's not science - it's woo-wooism.
 
CurtC said:
I agree with Luke T, that interpreting these images as trees puts one in the woo-woo camp. And yes, ACC has a history of believing other woo-woo things - did anyone ever see his PBS series about psychic phenomena?

Mark, if you say that the images look interesting because of patterns, and you'd like to find out what they are, that's great. But I can dismiss out-of-hand any talk of it being trees, just like I can dismiss the idea that the famous hill on Mars was a human face carved by civilized beings. That's not science - it's woo-wooism.
Click to expand...

If you say you don't expect them to be trees, then I agree with you (but I still would like to see them studied). If you say you don't believe in trees on Mars, then I say you are engaging in faith.

I don't expect the "face" on Mars to be anything other than an interesting rock. But I'll leave "belief" up to the Pope.

A subtle difference, I grant you...but one that I think allows for dissenting viewpoints, so crucial for progress in science.
 
Mark said:


If you say you don't expect them to be trees, then I agree with you (but I still would like to see them studied). If you say you don't believe in trees on Mars, then I say you are engaging in faith.

I don't expect the "face" on Mars to be anything other than an interesting rock. But I'll leave "belief" up to the Pope.

A subtle difference, I grant you...but one that I think allows for dissenting viewpoints, so crucial for progress in science.
Click to expand...

Just like discussions about god, this seems to be a semantics problem.

Faith = I believe in life on Mars
Fath = I believe there is NO life on Mars
No Faith Needed = I don't believe in life on Mars
No Faith Needed = I don't believe in no life on Mars (double negative intended)

Chances are, you agree with one another.
 
Bluegill said:


Just like discussions about god, this seems to be a semantics problem.

Faith = I believe in life on Mars
Fath = I believe there is NO life on Mars
No Faith Needed = I don't believe in life on Mars
No Faith Needed = I don't believe in no life on Mars (double negative intended)

Chances are, you agree with one another.
Click to expand...

Well...it is a sematics problem in part. For me, I try very hard not to "believe" in anything. I don't expect life on Mars, I don't expect no life on Mars. I can't wait to find out one way or the other!

I do strongly object to someone being labeled a 'woo-woo" just because they interpret the data differently. Again, I use the example of Gamma Ray Bursters...ALL scientists said that they HAD to be within the local Galactic Plane. To be otherwise would have required more energy being generated than exists in the entire universe. Or so they thought...turned out one of the basic assumptions (spherical distribution of the Gamma Rays) was flat out wrong (it is distributed in 2 narrow beams), thus making it possible for the GRBs to be VERY far (10 Billion lights years) away.

But if the subject had been discussed here, the scientist holding the differing viewpoint would have been declared a "woo-woo."

Avoid "belief."
 
And I believe that there is not an invisible pink unicorn on the far side of the Moon. However, I have no data one way or another, so this belief is exactly as irrational as my belief that there are not trees on Mars.
 
CurtC said:
And I believe that there is not an invisible pink unicorn on the far side of the Moon. However, I have no data one way or another, so this belief is exactly as irrational as my belief that there are not trees on Mars.
Click to expand...

Not a valid example. The conditions on Mars may be able to support life as we know it (what about life as we don't know it?)...the conditions on the moon probably don't support pink unicorns; although, since we no nothing whatsoever about the biology of pink unicorns, it would be impossible the say for certain. Still, Pink Moon Unicorns remain far more unlikely than Martian lichen or even trees.
 
CurtC said:
And I believe that there is not an invisible pink unicorn on the far side of the Moon. However, I have no data one way or another, so this belief is exactly as irrational as my belief that there are not trees on Mars.
Click to expand...

You have to grant that it is slightly more irrational, since we do actually have photographs of patterns on the surface of Mars which could, possibly, hoever unlikely it may be be trees.

There are, AFAIK, no such photos of creatures on the moon that could, possibly be unicorns!

Graham
 
CurtC said:
And I believe that there is not an invisible pink unicorn on the far side of the Moon. However, I have no data one way or another, so this belief is exactly as irrational as my belief that there are not trees on Mars.
Click to expand...


A unicorn on the Moon? That's ridiculous. I ask you, what would it breathe? There is no air in space!

(I'm setting someone up for a Homer quote here, don't let me down)
 
Hmmm...an interesting article about the "Mars Trees."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/clarke_mars_banyon_010709-1.html

Back to my original question: if not trees, then what? There doesn't seem to be any other plausible explanation...yet.

But I refuse to think anyone interested in this is a "woo-woo." The evidence for these things being 'trees" is a LOT stronger than that for Pink Moon Unicorns.

Edited to add:
I think we can eliminate the "cracked sediment basin" idea. They are clearly casting shadows.

You can disagree...but this subject (which I am just now educating myself on) is hardly the realm of 'woo-woos." from the same article:

"Astronomer, Andras Horvath, head of the Budapest Planetarium in Hungary, was early in spotting "dark dune spots" in MGS photos. He and other researchers, including a theoretical biologist, as well as an evolutionary biologist, have peered over countless MGS images.

The team argues that they see probable evidence of recent biological activity on Mars in MGS pictures, contrasting a variety of shots taken from 1998 into 2001. Focus of their attention has largely been in the south polar region of Mars, studying images that span late winter to early spring in the planet's southern hemisphere."
 
CurtC said:
There's an air-in-space museum!
Click to expand...

Ugh! That pun sucks!

(Yes, physicists, I know vacuum doesn't suck, air pressure blows; either way, something is nasty and I get to use a pun, too!)
 
I'll put my money on the non-biological explanation. Makes more sense to me.

But, its a nice target for a mission, robotic or manned.
 
It's more than that it makes more sense - it's the null hypothesis, and anyone saying that it's biological has to come up with extraordinary evidence. To me, the idea of trees on Mars is only slightly more plausible than the idea that there is a face on Mars. I guess that's why I was willing to label ACC and others woo-woo for even giving that idea consideration.

Did you ever see that web site (the author posted on this board a while ago) where someone said that he saw really tiny spaceships zooming about in the photos from the Apollo astronauts on the lunar surface? I'll look around for that again - maybe he's a believer of trees on Mars now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom