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)
Russians found liquid water on Mars!
http://www.libo.ru
Iraq: war to save the U
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.
Daffy Duck told me Marvin the Martian was there and was going to destroy the earth! Don't tell me television has been lying to me all these years.
Hold up, wait a minute, let me put some pimpin in it
WTF? So now Total Recall is all fake too? There's 2 hours of 'science learning' I'll never get back.
Can I take off my tinfoil hat now? It's kind of itchy. And hot.
If any of you tinfoil hatters are interested... (via anomalist.com)
....
....
... now 25 years old.
... such as Plait and Greenberg.
... and a lesser tidal input maintaining a current possible "liquid ocean for Europa."
I found it hilarious that the photo link Hoagland provides at the end goes to a page with a caption that mentions him as an "unidentified guest".
http://www.enterprisemission.com/response.htm
Email Exchange From Rob Roy Britt of Space.com
And Richard C. Hoagland on the Plait\Greenberg Allegations
In a message dated 3/12/2004 3:14:35 PM Mountain Standard Time, rbritt@HQ.SPACE.com writes:
Hi Richard:
I will be going into some of these issues. Your serious criticism of NASA
requires that I discuss your credentials as well. I just spoke with Ralph
Greenberg, who has analyzed some of your biographical claims that on your
web site. I've read them too, and indeed your web site clearly says that you
claim to have been the first to propose the Europa ideas. If you'd like to
respond to Greenberg's comments, feel free to e-mail me back.
Rob
Here is what Greenberg said to me:
"It's clear that [Hoagland] deserves no credit for proposing an ocean under
the ice on Europa." And regarding the notion of life: "Others before him
wrote on the same topic with more merit."
Greenberg says Hoagland deserves some credit for helping to popularize the
Europa ideas. But he is bothered that Hoagland does not make an effort to
clear the record.
"He never made it quite clear that this was not his original idea in any
sense," Greenberg said. "I think it's really shameful that he hasn't been
willing to make it crystal clear."
Rob,
OK, here's the real story behind Plait's current accusations
Greenberg is the source. It is his long-standing "Hoagland obsession" -- which has been going on for years, and can be characterized as nothing less -- that is a clear example of how far certain people are willing to go to smear our reputation and our work. This is a classic case of what I pointed out a couple days ago, about these baseless accusations being fundamentally "political"
I would hope, as a good reporter, you would prefer to rely on "primary sources" for your story -- as opposed to merely "hearsay" from third parties -- certainly third parties with an obvious political agenda. I would therefore strongly recommend that you begin by actually reading my original 1980 article, "The Europa Enigma" (on the Enterprise website -- http://www.enterprisemission.com/europa.html) -- which appeared in the January, 1980 issue of Star & Sky Magazine
In the entire article -- at no time -- do I take undue credit for the original idea of a potential ocean under Europa's icy surface. That is a skillfully spun fiction -- created specifically by our less than honest critics
What I actually do in this extensive paper is clearly credit Cassen, Peale and Reynolds -- who originated and published in Science Magazine the first tidal model for internal Jovian satellite heating, just before Voyager 1 arrived at Jupiter in early 1979. I clearly credit their original calculations regarding the possibility of tidal heating of Io
But, I also carefully cite their strong caveat (in the then just-published Science tidal paper) that, depending on certain "incalculable factors," such an originally liquid Europan ocean could have frozen solid in the 4.5 billion years of subsequent solar system history.
In other words, in their published model, there was a more than even chance that Europa's ocean now was no longer liquid -- but had become a 100 miles-deep glacier of solid ice! And, if this was the case, if such an original Europan ocean had ever frozen solid, their own tidal calculations in Science clearly stated it could never be unfrozen!
This is where the dishonest critics have carefully,
"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.
There was an interesting article in Discover magazine several years ago about why humans always think they see faces in random patterns (such as the Martian surface, or the smoke rising out of the World Trade Center ruins).
Basically, our brain is hard-wired to quickly recognize human faces. This is for survival purposes, of course. But when you stare at these non-human shapes - such as the Martian rock - it is obvious these are NOT faces. The brows are wrong, the nose is fitting only for Michael Jackson, and the mouth is horribly formed.
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.
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.