Re: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Honored By Scientific American

From: Bigdakine (bigdakine_at_aol.comGetaGrip)
Date: 12/06/04 

Date: 06 Dec 2004 08:00:53 GMT

>Subject: Re: Jet Propulsion Laboratory Honored By Scientific American
>From: lifeform1@atlantic.net (Thomas Lee Elifritz)
>Date: 12/5/04 7:29 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <29de1a66.0412050929.11c9bfde@posting.google.com>
>
>December 5, 2004
>
>"Ralph Nesbitt" <ralph-nesbitt@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message :
>
>> It has been my experience people that think they know it all & will not
>> listen to the ideas & questions of others soon is shown to be the fool for
>> not listening to or challenging the ideas of others in a
>> reasonable/responsible manner.
>
>I only picked this up in google because I've already fully developed
>your plonk file.
>
>Generally when you challenge scientific evidence or a scientific claim
>within the framework of scientific methods (as I understand them), you
>are expected to make your own claim, backed up by evidence, in other
>words, your challenge is itself a claim. With regards to life on Mars
>(past or present), I have seen precisely *ZERO* evidence provided by
>anyone that there *IS NOT* or *NEVER HAS BEEN* life on Mars,

By the same token nobody has proven that there is not, or never has been a
Unicorn. That in itself is not reason to suppose they exist.

THis is not the general way science works. Before we hang our hats on something
there must be evidence for it.

And as Sagan put it, "Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence"

So far all we have from Mars are tantalizing hints that conditions may have
been ripe to support life many eaons ago. However, that is not the same as
"evidence of life".

 whereas
>*ALL* of the evidence (the totality of our knowledge of science and
>life to date, plus the totality of our knowledge of Mars to date) has
>been to the contrary, that indeed, past and present life on Mars is a
>credible and reasonable working hypothesis,

Which is a far different thing than claiming life does or has existed on Mars.

and fits the observational
>evidence gathered thus far. The biolgical hypothesis is not only
>reasonable, it is responisble, indeed, it appears to be (from the
>totality of evidence) a cosmological imperative.

Thats hyperbole, not a scientific statement.

>
>Go ahead, challenge my claim.

Its worth repeating that claims along the line of "Prove X does not exist"
cannot, in general, be the foundation for a scientific theory.

Stuart
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a creationist"
  

"Creationists aren't impervious to Logic: They're oblivious to it."

Relevant Pages