Slashdot Mirror
'Civilization on Mars' Claims Debunked
StarEmperor writes "Bad Astronomy's Phil Plait has finally taken some time to
debunk conspiracy theorist Richard Hoagland's claims about life on Mars. There's also a CNN story about this here."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
This sort of thing simply exemplifies the sad state of science education in the general public. People when presented with the most superficial of data will adopt as truth the most extreme or absurd of claims with no critical assessment. This sort of blind trust allows folks to be taken in by claims of better health through unproven herbal supplements or claims of penile enlargments. On more serious notes, the lack of critical thinking among some has led to political and international policy that threatens to influence the state of world affairs.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Why bother debunking something so stupid? Just gives the conspiracy theorists more to talk about.
Also, anyone capable of rational thought would not believe such garbage in the first place. Anyone stupid enough to believe something that stupid isn't worth correcting.
Phil Plait should be given some award for his work in debunking bullshit.
What suitable options are there?
I'm glad this made the front page. Phil Plait is a force for Good...or at least Sense, and deserves all the recognition he can get.
If you're going to pound his server, at least click through his advertisers and think about buying his book, huh?
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
Hoagland has some wild theories based on the flimsiest of evidence and even doctored photographs (introducing symmetry where none existed for example). He's a guy who just can't let go of his pet theories in the face of mounting evidence refuting them.
What really gets me annoyed with this guy though is when he starts criticizing NASA & accusing them of dishonesty & coverup when the data don't match his preposterous theories. Half the time it's his own technical ignorance that's the problem.
The guy just doesn't understand that we'd all like to find evidence of life on Mars, bipedal walking around life most of all, but we can't let that cloud our judgement.
If mankind ever does find evidence of life on Mars it'll be no thanks to fools like Hoagland, although I'm sure he'll be the first to say "I told you so".
Claims on the basis of the most tennuous of evidence and outlandish conjecture are worse than useless.
The guy just doesn't understand that we'd all like to find evidence of life on Mars, bipedal walking around life most of all, but we can't let that cloud our judgement.
On the contrary-- I think he understands this fact very well. I think people want there to be life in space, especially close to home. Hoaglad feeds off of this, and uses it to his advantage. And he makes money in doing so... I would be very surprised if he honestly believed his own crazy ideas. People believe because they want to, not because there is any substantial evidence...
[FromTheMorning]
While I agree with your assessment on the state of public education, for the Hoagland's of the world this is not about science, this is about religion. These extraterrestrials amongst us believers need to live a world with an external purpose and reason for being. They will never get that from science and feel conventional religions are beneath them or just too unbelievable. For these folks its not just about extraterrestrial life, which rational science types like me find totally plausible, it's the whole they live amongst us, they are so much more advanced, they created us and have a purpose for us (that is only reveled to the occasional abducted prophets), and they have given us all the technological advances since WWII. This is a new-age religion that had nothing to do with science education.
People like this nutcase must be debunked for the damage they do to serious astronomy. By allowing this kind of infestation to manifest just because you know how ridiculous it is you end up giving credibility simply by way of not having debunked it. Much as eco-terrorists like ELF and ALF damage the environmental cause, people like this guy (not saying he's a terrorist) damage the credibility of things like SETI.
Think how many people now believe in crap like Roswell and little green men. Now think how people like this make it hard for the public to take this science seriously. The idiot wants pr, but by not giving him the smackdown he so desperately needs, they'll get unearned credibility instead. The lack of pr will of course just be proof of a conspiracy against them.
Just think, to believe this guy you'd have to accept that we've spent hundreds of millions of dollars just on this one one mission to look for signs of life and that we would then turn around and ignore it when we found it. Too bad they don't teach logic in schools anymore.
Here is the deal. Hoagland makes extraordinary claims. It is up to the claimant to provide extraordinary evidence. For instance, Hoagland's proof for life on Mars includes an old blurry pixellated photo of a "face". Plait points out that this is not proof. Plait doesn't have to disprove there is life on Mars to "debunk" Hoagland, he merely needs to point out the lack of evidence for it. Now, even with a high resolution photograph of the face, Hoagland refuses to back down from his claims and keeps selling books on the subject. I think his credibility and motives are open for speculation. Hoagland also misrepresents his credentials and this should be open to scrutiny.
Never overestimate the end user. -jeramy b. smith
"This sort of thing simply exemplifies the sad state of science education in the general public."
Not just science ed, but the basic skill of critical thinking. I can't speak for how things are going in the rest of the world, but here in the US it's gotten particularly sad. People as a whole just don't seem able or willing to be bothered by thinking for themselves.
Seems to me that many moons ago, even those who lacked formal higher education could be counted on to have "horse sense" - the simple ability to call "Shenanigans" when faced with something fishy, and run the snake oil salesman out of town.
These days it seems everyone's simply lining up for snake oil subscriptions. What's up? Too much "Reality" TV? Sure folks have always been duped, but damn it seems like a national pastime these days.
Did you read more than the Introduction? Plait has individual pages for each claim, which get into the actual science of why Hoagland's ideas are misguided at best.
Oh, and Hoagland's website design is painful. Ow, my eyes.
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
Giving this guy attention, in fact, lends credence to his claims.
...
I remember when I scored my first writing job. My uncle, who is a successful journalist, tried to give me some good advice.
He asked, "What's the first job of a reporter?"
"To tell the story as accurately as possible?"
"No," he said. "The first job of a reporter is to create controversy."
Controversy, he explained, sells the news, engages readers, sparks conversation, and leads to follow-ups. Oh, and it sells the news.
So if you throw this nincompoop on "Coast to Coast", with 10 million readers, and you give him a voice, even if you do take shots at him, does this really count as "debunking" given the massive exposure he received?
I think it only counts as idiocy. Come on. The guy points at pictures of geological features and calls them faces. In a Communist society he'd be locked up and his family would be shamed. In America he's used to boost advertising rates.
Not that that's a criticism, mind you. I think we're all guilty of nuttiness here and there, so thank God we can be used to boost advertising rates
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
My random theory is that the reason that the U.S. gets a lot of crackpots has a bit to do with our history. We're taught from elementary school on up that the U.S. was founded on the democratic notion that the "common man" is equal to (or better than) whoever is in power at the time. This populism is great for a lot of reasons, but it also means its hardly surprising Americans don't trust authority figures. Many people feel that an ordinary person with common sense could walk right in and show the snotty types who think they know everything that they're doing things all wrong. So we get people who think that evolution contradicts the "common sense" of the Bible, quantum mechanics contradicts classical common sense, etc. and that whatever weird ideas they have are better. Some people think that, since they're as good as anyone else, if they don't understand something then it must be wrong.
you'd love an intro polysci class.
yes and no; born-again evangelican christians (also known as religio-loonies) are apt to fervently disagree with something just on the basis that it was said by a "scientist". Eg, Scientist: "global warming could potentially have a negative effect on the world's ecosystem and agribusinesses." Christian nut: "...another liberal lie, god bless Texaco!"
People tend to trust and believe things said by persons they identify with. People on slashdot are probably more likely (as a group) to identify with "scientist"s than are say, people in a baptist church in dixieland. Just like people in that church would be more likely to agree with their minister that "the plight of coconut harvesters in equatorial guinea has got to STOP!" based on who said it than say, a crowd of random people on the street. (don't read too much into these example... as far as I know there are no coconuts in Eq Guinea).
It's just an information processing shortcut.
Oh come on, don't pretent you hold up every single assertion to a microscope. We all take this shortcut. Some of us just have better bs detectors. Also happenstance is everpresent (some people call this luck).
PS: I am not denying the existence of stupidity, or of stupid people. I also don't think I am shocking parent's author with blinding wisdom. Just sayin'.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
Hoagland regularly appears on Coast to Coast AM, an overnight syndicated talk show with something like 12 million listeners.
They get the listeners to email NASA demanding ridiculous things. Another poster pointed out that they got a Mars probe to drop other important work to take more photos of the "face on mars."
When NASA did it, Hoagland went on the radio and accused NASA of faking the photos to hide the evidence. He's a classic delusional type, who sees any evidence that proves him wrong as proof that there's a conspiracy.
A lot of the problem is the radio show, which is irresponsible, in my view. During the whole Y2K scare, one of the hosts hyped the hell out of it, and sold people overpriced bunker food on the side.
I understand the appeal of the show, and I enjoy that sort of thing myself. The argument for it is that it's sort of like pro wrestling -- it's just a show, everyone knows it's just a show, and the few people who don't just make the whole thing that much more entertaining. I can buy all of that.
The problem comes when these guys start scaring people and exploiting them (with the bunker food), or when they create real problems for NASA. NASA has enough troubles now, they don't need this crap.
I'm *NOT* calling for any kind of government action, or any sort of censorship. I don't support what's happening to Howard Stern, and I wouldn't support anyone hassling Coast to Coast AM.
I do think it's appropriate for other people to wake up to how many listeners these guys have, and to try to keep them relavtively honest. These sorts of articles are a great start.
You should have heard the show last night. Two guys were on saying that 97% of population is going to die this year. We need to build underground bunkers, buy their books & videotapes etc.
Well they were on last month saying the same thing, and the purpose of last night's (this morning actually) show was that the fellow who has had these visions supposedly met with Sister Lucia, the Carmelite nun who is the last surviving witness to the Fatima miracles.
The fellow said he met with the nun for 5 minutes, but wouldn't tell us what she said because it was personal! George told him he would not allow him and his audience to be exploited in this manner and cut off both guests in the middle of the show! I think it showed a tremendous amount of integrity.
Guests on c2c do not get paid so in general they are allowed to plug their website or book but they cannot use it to scam people. The topics on the show are not presented as the only objective truth but rather many different viewpoints that a person can listen to, be entertained, and make up their own mind.
Sometimes I find art gets a little over his head with highly scientific or technological discussions, which is funny because hes a genius radio engineer. He hosts the show, runs the board, reads the commercials, takes the calls, all from his trailer in the middle of the Nevada desert and all by himself! How many of you could do that? He has never allowed himself to be influenced by the suits, and how many DJs distributed by ClearChannel can you say that about?
The show covers a wide range of topics. Many of the topics are not and will not be covered by any other major media. I think it is a valuable service and certainly entertaining. I think both George and Art though, make it abundantly clear that the rule of caveat emptor always applies.
Maybe this claim is true. Maybe it isn't. However since for the moment all evidence of this claim has explanations that are much simpler we are required to accept this simpler explanation that fits the evidence.
We are skeptical, as science requires us to be. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and there doen't appear to be any such evidence for the moment. Furthermore the burden of proof is on Hoagland and others who make such claims.
Share bicycle touring info worldwide: http://wheretocycle.com
To NASA, an actual fossil of something on Mars means big headlines and (more importantly) big funding. I can't find any reason they would destroy one that doesn't involve donning a tinfoil hat first.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
Science is full of dogma, unfounded beliefs, lack of proof, unstated assumptions, errors, etc. And science education usually does no more to address these problems than other academic disciplines.
At the fringes, yes -- there is a point where all some scientists do is the intellectual equivalent of mastrubation. There's also the crackpot fringe whose diplomas by-and-large come from mail-order diploma mills, but who write convincing-sounding books on the scientific validity of numerology in the bible and staple a 'PhD' at the end of their name -- just to sound credible.
Mainstream science, however, is all about proof, and if you don't have it, you get reamed. If you rely on unstated assumptions that turn out to be false, you get reamed. If you make errors, you get reamed when someone double-checks your work. This is why all of the Cold Fusion nuts have been sent to the fringes, along with the 'young earth' and 'flat earth' types -- because they refuse to acknowledge their mistakes.
Seriously. Show me an unfounded belief, error, or unstated assumption that has stuck around in physics, chemistry, biology, or any other scientific field for a signifigant period of time. Something that is clearly and demonstrably false, yet which the mainstream community refuses to correct. Good luck.
--
I Hit the Karma Cap, and All I Got Was This Lousy
I read the CNN article, and that was mostly handwaving and attacking of credibility.
So let me get this straight: your claim that Plait didn't debunk Hoagland is predicated on the fact that you did not, in fact, bother to read the actual article in which Plait debunked Hoagland, but instead made up your mind based on the dubious credibility of the reporter from CNN's interpretation of events.
Thank you, sir, for volunteering to so aptly illustrate the "false authority" problem that this story revolves around.
And it has an unintended benefit, actually. Don't you realize that by getting so many people to argue these silly facts, the producers of the show have inadvertently, as a side effect, caused many people to believe in logic and the scientific method?
My favorite theme on the show, by the way, was Bottomless Holes.
God bless the chupacabras, the inventors of perpetual motion machines and engines that run on water. Give thanks to the guys that walk the streets dressed as Killer Bees. They make life a bit more interesting.
What's really disgusting is the way the media is cynically exploiting these beliefs. But I view that as just another symptom of the "1000 channels and nothing's on" syndrome. Which is a result of so much media being controlled by so few companies, so that real creativity or insight has no chance in the mass media. Crap is easy to produce and has a high profit margin, so that's what the media monopolies give us. That's of a lot more immediate importance that any silly arguments over the Mars Face.
I don't tend to buy conspiracy theories, but I also don't eliminate valid possibilities without investigation because I can make up an explanation. Want to know for sure what the hell the 'Glass Worm' is? Drop a lander there and FIND OUT. That's what scientific investigation is about. Forming a hypothesis and testing it. We seem to be missing the testing on some of these points. Providing an alternate, unporven hypothesis does not constitute proof (or debunking, for that matter).
On some of these, there are clearly valid explanations, such as the 'green spot' photos. On others, I'm sorry, there's simply not.
Certainly, we don't know in the mathematical sense of complete, undeniable proof. But we do not have to forsake sense in the name of fairness. As I recall about the Glass Worm photo, Plait says that perspective is deceptive is many astronomical photos, presents an example that looks like a crater in one orientation and a dome in another, and suggests that a similar perceptual trick is probably at work in the case of the "worm." He also explains the "glassy" appearance in terms of an imaging effect. This is a far better hypothesis than any Hoagland has proposed, and while I would love to be able to explore Mars inch by inch, in the absence of infinite money, work like Plait's is the best we have. And there's no reason at all to fund a mission to go check out Hoagland's assertations about the Martian surface, since they really ought to pin the needle on even a Wal-Mart bullshit detector.
(Besides, it's clearly a Habitrail left over from the Giant Space Hamsters once plentiful on Mars, and sadly unable to survive the climate change.)
-Carolyn
Like Daddy always said: if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.
Mod this up, for crying out loud.
This hits the nail on the head. We have all this talk from the conspiracist nuts claiming that all this evidence of civilizations and life on Mars is being covered up without really giving us any coherent idea as to why.
If NASA sent up a probe and really DID find ruins of a past civilization, there would be no way it could be suppressed. There is no way they would want to suppress it. Hell, a discovery like that might lead to NASA's budget being tripled due to public interest in the matter. There would be a mad scramble to find a way -- ANY way -- to get a real live human being up there to explore it, or at least to send up a probe that could actually take something back to Earth.
So what reason would the government/NASA have to cover it up? If anything, the US government would love for such a discovery to happen. It would divert the people's attention from things the current administration would like us to forget, such as Iraq and dubya's invisible WMDs and our so-called "jobless recovery."
Karma: Frotzed (mostly due to the Frobozz Magic Karma Company)
You know, as soon as I see someone plugging those words, I get suspicious. There may very well be absolutely, positively no life on Mars. But considering how "reputable" people once thought the Earth was flat and revolving around the sun (and cut off the heads of all those who disagreed), I think I'll wait until there's a little more direct evidence one way or the other. Isn't that what the "scientific method" is all about? One "rosetta stone" uncovered by a Rover and everything Plait argues so fervently gets tossed in the toilet. A little less "absolutism" from the so-called scientific community, please...
From many years of debating with our friends in the tin foil hats, I think skepticism is similar. Admittedly all of us believe in silly ideas from time to time, but there are some people who appear absolutely driven to believe every fruitcake conjecture that comes down the turnpike, and no amount of facts or reasoning will change their minds.
Given this, the purpose of debating with such people is not to influence them, but to influence the audience listening in.
Sorry... I've seen many crinoid stems and other fossils; that just doesn't look like one. The "structure" fades imperceptibly into the overall fabric of the rock. These are cracks, not evidence of fossil life. There are plenty of inorganic structures in rocks on Earth that look more like fossils than this Martian feature does.
As for the face, the (recently damaged) Old Man of the Mountain in New Hampshire was remarkably face-like. Our brains like to see patterns and tend to impose them on images. Whether faces or fossils or witches, just saying "it looks like one" is not enough.