Slashdot Mirror
Frigid Lake May Hold Keys To The Origins Of Life
small_dick writes: "I ran across this article at the LA Times. It's about a fresh water lake, protected by the Antarctic ice cap for millions of years. Lake Vostok was first discovered in 1996, but scientists still struggle over the best methodology to probe, yet not contaminate, this historic find."
I think it was on Discovery channel. Very interesting. They covered some of the ideas to get samples out of the lake, including some robots that melt their way down inside of a shell...and then come out a few meters from the lake. That way it isn't contaminated.
The interesting thing about this is that this is a great exercise in what it will take to explore some of the oceans on other planets and moons. The same rules about not contaminating apply.
You mean to tell me they found a new, completely untapped, quantity of fresh water?
We must build a pipeline and route it to California, immediately!
Here is an article from Wired magazine on Lake Vostok.
There are a few x-ray-like pictures of Antarctica I've seen here and there on the Net which show the position and size of the subglacial lake, including a small movie clip which even shows the lake's depth and dimensions.
Just a few things about your comment:
Fundamentally, science is carefully considered observations. Thus, anything that cannot be observed cannot be addressed by science.
You're somewhat right in this, and somewhat wrong. Much of science, especially biology and the non-mathematical ones, are based on observations. However, in some of the more mathematically based sciences, logic and equations dominate, up to the point that without mathematics, there would be no way to explain any of the observable and non-observable phenomena. As an atmospheric scientist myself, I know this first-hand. I'm doing research essentially on a mathematical construct which describes some very difficult to observe structures inside a hurricane. These structures have never truly been observed, and even their existence is in doubt, but the mathematics behind it is solid and shows that they have to exist. So, my point is that not all science deals with observation then theory. Sometimes, the theory outruns the observational techniques.
Any truly enlightened person will realize that life could only have occurred because of a Divine Touch, but I won't expect scientists to realize this.
While this opens a can of worms, the real problem comes down to semantics. You said it yourself, really, when you said, "...an event that remote.". Whether life occured due to random chance or divine intervention of your favorite deity is a fun debate, but you're totally right: it's such a remote event, and totally irreproducable, that neither side can truly support its claim without invoking something that runs contrary to someone's beliefs. Essentially, the basic axioms everyone takes for granted don't help us out here.
So, what to do about the question? Ignorance may be bliss, but it's not the best option. Best option is to keep all options open, no matter how warped or strange they may seem. Just don't say that any evidence is bad, because there is some truth in all "evidence".
Much of the sciences have come to a stand still because scientists refuse to realize that their tool is not the appropriate one for all problems. Perhaps it is an education problem, or maybe it's just one of ego. Regardless, science needs to focus on what it applies to, and leave the mysteries of the origin of life to those who can best understand them.
Again, there's some truth and half-truth in that first statement. Some areas of the sciences are standing still, and shouldn't be, IMO. But the general scientific method is an excellent tool for figuring out many problems. Yes, you're right that it's not appropiate for all problems, and yes, some scientists are not aware of that fact. But the problem is that it's one of the best tools we have for dealing with many problems, so it's only natural to use it for problems that it might not work on. If anything, it gives some interesting results that may or may not lead to the solution to the problem. Does this mean that science should stop poking its nose into these problems? No! Many important advances were accidentally figured out when a person looked into a problem, and figured out the answer to a mostly unrelated problem in the process. It's this accidental nature of the scientific method that is the main reason that science shouldn't stop poking it's nose into other groups' business, or as you say, "those who can best understand them".
I'd like to address that last sentence also. Knowledge is not only advanced by the experts in a field, but also by those only loosely associated and interested in it. The history of mathematics is a great example. Many of the important theories in mathematics were not figured out by lifetime mathematicians, but by people who were interested in other disciplines that used math and needed a solution to a problem. Much of differential equations was worked out by engineers and physicists, for example. To deny a person who's interested in a subject, no matter what their background or approach is, is just a bad idea. (I'm not claiming that science has been perfect in this respect either.) Knowledge is gained by all those interested in a subject contributing, discussing and critiquing. That's what many disciplines strive for, and why segregating disciplines is a bad idea all around. It's not an ego problem of science or of any other discipline or even an educational problem. There's little problem there at all.
So what if there ends up to be too little evidence to theorize about the origin question? If something is learned about any question, even if it wasn't initially strived for, it's a success in my book. But it's nice having a big goal to shoot for, right?
-Jellisky
The article is in the March '01 issue of Scientific American.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i