Yes it is an order of magnitude easier to send a robotic probe somewhere, that is why we have sent them much further already. In the case of outer solar system missions, it is probably several orders of magnitude easier. That does not say anything about the capability of the mission.
There's no reason for us to think that there is an amount of investment that will make a flesh based mission equal in capability to an unmanned mission (with the same investment). There is no reason to think that, since nobody has been able to define what it is that flesh can do that can't be done better by a robot given the conditions (near vacuum, devastating cold, deadly radiation, low gravity).
And meanwhile, unmanned technology has advanced from a few stationary seconds on Mars to landing on a comet and roaming around Mars at will for an arbitrarily long period. Compared to the advances in robotic tech even in the last 15 years (post the development of Spirit and Opportunity) manned space development has for all intents and purposes stood still. Meanwhile, automation technology has advanced so that cars have advanced for automatic gearboxes to being able to park themselves. There are cars that drive themselves. Yet somehow, you can't imagine a robot that drives itself on Mars?
You know what they say: whilst humans clean the toilets on the space station, robots are leaving the solar system.
A technicality. It's a spiritual fervour all the same. A fervour that not everybody feels.
For most practical purposes, Earth has no more undiscovered continents, no more unexplored territory, and no more absolute wilderness.
But that's been the case for probably 10000 years. When was the last time we found an unsettled continent of any significance? Greenland? How are we to judge the motivations of those ancient people? Probably they moved along not because of some intrinsic need to 'explore' but for entirely practical reasons: disputes, better game, climate change.
I think you overstate the case -- for the present.
Thought experiment: Imagine you could magically transport several humans to Mars along with all the shelter and supplies they needed. Naturally, you could also use your magic transporter to transport a robotic vehicle. Which would be more valuable?
Why would I engage in a thought experiment where rocket technology is magically advanced yet machine autonomy mysteriously degrades to the state it was 10 years ago? That is irrational.
At present, the humans would be a better choice due to their greater behavioral flexibility and autonomy.
Unpredictable behaviour is a liability. We don't send astronauts somewhere and say "sure fred, just do whatever you like". Semi-autonomy is the ideal. We can already build machines which are semi-autonomous enough to drive around on Mars.
At present the state of space transport technology favors sending robots to Mars exclusively. But how do we advance space transport technology to make the manned trip desirable?
The more fundamental question is why. This question has not been answered yet.
No, we're not doing human level science on Mars. Opportunity, the previous generation rover, has taken 10 years to travel 25 miles. Which is only slightly further than how far the Lunar Rover for Apollo 17 travelled (22 miles) over the course of 4.5 hours.
Notably, when the Apollo astronauts wanted to cover a lot of ground in a short amount of time they used a machine. If we built the Lunar Rover today and attached modern guidance software and some cameras/LIDAR it would, again, travel 40 kms in 4.5 hours. It's speed had nothing to do with the humans aboard.
Odd turn of phrase. What made you think that people were trying to convince you?
Why are you posting then?
Because it's an interesting subject to me, and I enjoy debate, and I enjoy being challenged by contrary opinion. I said that your turn of phrase "I'm not convinced" is odd, because of the context. Plans to send humans to Mars have not advanced for 30 years. We are no closer than we were in 1975. The reason, when it comes down to it, is that as a species, we are not convinced by the case put forward that we ought to do it. It's not inevitable that we are going to go there. Quite the opposite. Nevertheless I'm not couching your arguments as an attempt to convert me to your cause. There's no burden of proof here.
We can look at Apollo to see what human-level exploration and research looks like.
Yes. Having achieved the aim of 'beating the Ruskies' Apollo was cancelled. All too human I would say.
I find it disingenuous to equate human-level exploration with no exploration at all.
This article is about the other kind of missions, where you send flesh, and make a great leap.
It isn't a great leap, because sending flesh serves no purpose. We achieve the same by sending a probe with a piece of steak attached. What about the piece of steak makes sending it a 'great leap'.
I know, it's a tough subject, but for historical reference and comparison, I suggest to look up the race to the Moon.
The purpose of going to the moon (as stated by Kennedy) was to beat the Soviets at something. Mission accomplished. Having beaten the Soviets, Apollo was cancelled, because it served no purpose.
Predictability and adaptability. A backhoe is good for very few things. In the same way, the Curiosity is only good at what it was designed to do. It can't adapt.
And yet, Curiousity has perfomed more science than all the manned missions ever put together.
Humans, on the other hand can take the tools provide and experiment outside of pre-planned parameters.
Only in a very limited way. Humans can't take a shovel and repair a leaky door seal. Humans can't adapt to life in a vacuum. Humans can't adapt to low gravity, it eats their bones and destroys their eyesight and atrophies the cardiovascular system. Which is why we don't send humans on long missions. Inability to adapt.
If something unexpected comes up, we have to build a whole new machine to deal with that and then we have to send it there.
No we don't. There is a vast difference between the things you want (in the manner of a little girl wanting a unicorn), and the things that humanity needs (food, shelter et. al). We aren't going to spend trillions of dollars genetically modifying a horse to make a species of unicorn just because some little girl wants one. The same applies to your desire to see a space colony.
Well, yes, you can move along slowly and use the time to analyse the stream of data coming back to determine whether to change direction. If we wanted to go faster, we could send robots that went faster. No biggie,
What could possibly be a better use of your time than the greatest exploration mankind has ever undertaken?
Sorry, what does Cassini/Huygens have to do with it?
I think you are grossly underestimating the amount of hand holding going on from mission control here on Earth.
And this is a bad thing because...? [insert rational answer here].
I don't think there will or has been a 'great leap' forward, just progress commensurate with the resources invested. In terms of humans vs machines, it is certainly not an either / or proposition. You talk as if we never send probes, robots and machines. We do, many of them and are planning many more, but currently we do not have remote tech anywhere near as sophisticated as a human in terms of adaptability and independence.
At this stage, everybody knows that unmanned missions are the future. Largely, they are the past as well. Human missions reached as far as the moon - not quite out of the earths gravity well. Unmanned missions from the same era reached mars, jupiter, saturn, and right now are analysing the heliopause. Right now, unmanned missions are about to LAND ON A COMET, and visit Pluto. On the other side, we hope to be able to continue sending humans to the ISS, a satellite in LEO. This is the magnitude of difference between machine capability and flesh: The distance between Earth and Pluto.
The Opportunity Mars rover has covered 25 miles in years. The Apollo 17 rover covered 22 miles in a few hours. Whilst sending a human is an order of magnitude more complicated than sending a rover, it would also currently be an order of magnitude more useful. I
That is a ridiculous measure. How fast do you think MAVEN is going? Voyager? Cassini? How fast does the MRO travel over the surface of Mars - having completely mapped the surface of mars in less than a year (how long would it take a human, on foot, to do that). RIGHT NOW, there are autonomous cars that can drive better than the average human. You don't think we could send a vehicle to another planet capable of moving faster than 22 miles an hour? The reason we don't, is of course, because there is no need.
It is also something a great many people would like to see, and a great many people are willing to pay for. The inspirational effect of the Apollo landings cannot be underestimated, truly one of mankind's greatest achievements and a massive boost to the prestige of science and engineering.
In fact, Apollo was cancelled. Why? Not popular enough, Why aren't we sending humans to Mars? Because not enough people are convinced that it is a good idea.
However, the Voyager probe for example, was also a tremendous achievement and I am not sure where these people are who regard that as an 'illegitimate' mission.
No need to look beyond this article, which calls a manned mission to mars a "great leap forward". It's not a great leap forward by any reasonable measure unless we can find a rational reason why we need to send flesh. Flesh based missions are the steam era of travel. Sure, it's nostalgic, hence the frequent references to a Apollo, a program cancelled in the 1970s because it was drifting and unpopular. But we no longer rely on steam for our actual daily commute. Other forms of travel are just better.
A big part of the reason I'm not convinced is because of how much boosters of unmanned-only exaggerate the capabilities of such machines.
Odd turn of phrase. What made you think that people were trying to convince you?
There's no current machine that can beat a pressure-suited expert on the ground.
There are currently machines on the ground doing science. Aaaand where are the besuited experts currently? Are they on ground? Give us a breakdown on the actual current capability of besuited experts versus machines.
In the meantime, the current desultory effort at studying Mars, means we'll lose at least a whole generation of researchers long before we get to human-level science acquisition on Mars.
We are already doing human level science on Mars. We sent robots. They do science for us.
No need for every command to be confirmed by a earthbound operator. Just make it semi-autonomous i.e "Head towards point X but stop and look at anything unusual".
Worth noting also that a machine with modern sensory equipment and software is going to be far far superior at spotting the "unusual" something as it makes it's way to point X. A human normally has 5 senses he uses to absorb information - but on Mars, this is effectively reduce to one - or less than one, because the light on Mars will fool the human vision into missing things (differentiations) which are actually important. The other senses (hearing, smell, touch, taste) are of no use because the human is ensconced in a suit, in a practical vacuum.
A rover typically operates with multitude of senses simultaneously - senses designed not for roaming about on earth, but for Mars. Vision into the infra red and ultraviolet, spectral analysis. Radiation detectors. Radar. Numerous things it can use to detect out of pattern materials for further investigation.
Give an unmanned mission even half the funding needed for a manned mission and you will get 10x the science of a manned mission.
The next great leap in human spaceflight is a manned mission to a world within our Solar System: most likely Mars.
[citation needed]
I think we will never achieve a great leap forward until we come to terms with the fact that what is holding us back from leaping forward is the irrational notion that we need to send flesh for a mission to be legitimate. Sending human flesh to another planet is about as useful long term as sending frozen steak or a banana. We don't insist on using only our hand when building a house: we use tools and machinery. In fact, it is said that the thing that separates us from other species is our tool making. We make tools to achieve the things we want to do, and to advance and make our lives better. The tools for exploring outer space are unmanned probes, robots, machines. Machines that don't require flesh in situ to make them work. 10000 years ago, flesh was needed to dig a hole. Now, we use a back hoe. We don't think of a hole dug by a back hoe as somehow suspect because we didn't dig it by hand. Why is space travel subject to these artificial constraints? Sure: Before the age of computers we didn't imagine machines could be sufficiently autonomous to enable them to be effective, long term in space. But now, we know better. In the 1960s, it was thought the future lay with sending humans into space to move levers. Now, we know better. The humans are just inert luggage. Let's go luggage free.
There is no contradiction. The agnostic believes it is impossible to KNOW, but the agnostic can still BELIEVE.
That would make agnosticism meaningless. Since it is not meaningless, but rather meaningful, and a position held by many thoughtful people, we can assume as a baseline that your conflation is an error.
Notwithstanding that, many (nearly all) theists hold that since deities are not empirical (i.e deities are non-deterministic from our reference frame) it is invalid to expect empirical evidence for a deity, and thus you've classified theists and agnostics together, but also atheists and agnostics together, so there is, in fact, no system of classification at all. Very unsatisfactory!
You've made this mistake by making several false assumptions:
The first assumption is that everyone must have a view. Imagine a child. A child, who has never been presented with the idea of a deity, has not been presented either with the opportunity to either accept or reject the existence of a deity. Neither can the child have decided that such a determination is impossible. Because the child is without knowledge. Ignorant. The child is not a theist, and not an atheist, since, if you asked the child "Is there a God or Gods?" they would only honestly be able to say "I don't know. What is a God?"
The child is without knowledge. They are agnostic.
The second false assumption is to assume that the underlying (fundamental) proposition is about process i.e. how we arrive at a conclusion to the question: "Is there a God or Gods?". This is incorrect. If a deity exists, they exist independently of whether we think they exist, or the process which drew us to that conclusion. If they don't exist, then their non-existence has more authority than the strength of the argument claiming that they do. So (in short) the question "Is there a God or Gods?" concerns not introspective views of the nature of belief, but whether something exists, like a chair, or a star, or a unicorn.
So: "Is there a God or Gods?" Has three potential answers:
"I don't know" - Agnosticism. The question of why you don't know is secondary.
"No" - Atheism. The assertion "I have no belief" is not answering the question. No one cares whether you think you lack belief.
"Yes" - Theism.
You are equating belief and knowledge, a common misconception. They are not the same.
According to what ontology? See this classical definition of belief from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...: In this broader sense "belief" simply means the acceptance as true of any cognitive content. . According to the common epistemology, there is no difference even in the general case. Since the question of a deity (or lack thereof) is in the non-deterministic space, with no empirical evidence either way to guide us. Therefore assertions on the matter e.g. "This a deity" or "There is no deity" are not expressions of knowledge, but belief.
Agnostic means "without knowledge". It is the stance that we can not know whether god exists or not.
Or more accurately, that we/you do not know whether or not a deity exists.
An agnostic atheists holds that we can not know whether or not god exists, and lacks belief in god.
An agnostic theist holds that we can not know whether or not god exists, and holds a belief in god.
But here you definition is self contradictory. If an agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a deity, then they cannot simultaneously believe there is/is no deity.
Mars has some huge positives, namely the fact that it's not Earth. Think of it as an offsite backup for the human race.
Colonizing Antarctica would be like making a backup of your computer on a USB stick and then leaving it plugged in.
If you were my backup guy, I'd fire you. Your backup plan is analogous to moving (not copying, moving) a few gigabytes of a petabyte production system onto a usb stick, and then storing that usb stick in a ziplock bag under an iceberg on the arctic circle. This is not a good backup plan, owing to the following:
You backup plan doesn't actually copy any data, it just moves it
The vast majority of the important data lies unprotected
The "backup" itself is inadequately protected and subjected to such hazard that you will lose that data (permanently)
A large part of the plan is difficult and hazardous for reasons that are arbitrary. If you want to protect the data, why store it in such an inhospitable place? Why store it in a place that is so difficult and expensive to get to?
But think about it. Who the hell wants to live in an underground colony on Earth, permanently? You're not gonna get many volunteers.
Umm. Where do you think the Mars colonists will live? Mars is bathed in radiation, and it is, for all intents and purposes, a vacuum. To live on Mars is to live underground. On Earth, you could shelter underground and then return to the surface to live, after only a few days, should a Chicxulub type event ever occur. And then, back to business. On Mars, you are underground until your colony dies out, which it will.
And I guarantee *nobody* is going to fund it. Living underground in Kansas has zero glamour. Like it or not, humans love exploring new places and thanks to sci-fi, Mars has a tremendous romantic value.
No it doesn't. There is little, if any, public feeling in favour of a Mars colony. There is a small group of enthusiasts who project their feelings onto others. Short term enthusiasm will not sustain a venture on this scale. If these enthusiasts get their way and a tentative Mars colony is established, it will soon become obvious to everyone that Mars is boring and deadly and life for the colonist there is worse than living in a hut in Antarctica. At least in Antarctica you can go outside. I'd give that colony a year at most before funding is cut off.
Perhaps they have never even thought about the topic at all (no thoughts == no knowledge). Nor do they form their identity through comparison with others.
These are not the issue, though.
I assure you it's an issue for agnostics. A taxonomy of belief which excludes/ignores a whole group of people or classifies them under positions which they strenuously disagree with is an invalid taxonomy.
If they hold a belief in a god or gods, they are theist. If they don't, they are atheist.
Incorrect.
"I have no belief" is not a valid answer to the question "Is there a deity or deities?" If there is a deity, it exists independently of what people believe, because belief doesn't actualise the deity into being, and non-belief doesn't cause the deity to stop existing.
There are only 3 possible answers to the question: is there a deity of deities:
For some reason you've chosen to misquote me. This is generally an indicator that you are uncomfortable addressing the topic. I say this so that you may reflect on why that might be.
Is there a difference between knowledge and belief when it comes to assertions re: the existence of deities?
Yes. Always.
Knowledge is based, either directly or through a proxy, upon known facts that are some combination of repeatable, consensually experiential, and testable. Sound travels at a particular speed in our atmosphere. This is knowledge.
Beliefs are based upon faith, and cannot be proven, although they can be described and so passed along. Animals cross the rainbow bridge when they die. This is belief.
According to this definition then the statement there is no deity would qualify as belief, since it is not based on anything repeatable, consensually experiential, and testable and is in fact based upon faith, and cannot be proven, although [it] can be described and so passed along.
Is there a difference between knowledge and belief when it comes to assertions re: the existence of deities? I'm not even sure that there is a difference even in the general case i.e. knowledge and belief are the same.
So then a lack of belief and a lack of knowledge are the same (agnosticism == no belief).
Agnostics that entertain any measure of belief are theists.
I don't think Agnostics are prevaricating between theism and atheism. Perhaps they have never even thought about the topic at all (no thoughts == no knowledge). Nor do they form their identity through comparison with others.
Plenty of people (other than atheists) lack a belief in a deity or deities. For instance, agnostics. So this is not the defining characteristic of atheism. Atheists happen to share that characteristic with various other belief systems. The defining characteristic of atheism (the characteristic which sets it apart from, say, agnosticism) is the belief that there is no deity or deities.
So whilst it is correct to say "atheists lack a belief in a god or gods" it is incorrect to say "atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods".
Not my job to prove your assertions. And if your assertion was correct, there would be theories that these scientists have articulated, and you would be able to describe those theories and the observational basis for them. You can't, I conclude your/their assertion "there is no recent warming trend"? is bunk.
Find out what those 3% are thinking, because I don't know.
You said you did know. You said they were claiming there hasn't been a warming trend. Here.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is an order of magnitude easier to send a robotic probe somewhere, that is why we have sent them much further already. In the case of outer solar system missions, it is probably several orders of magnitude easier. That does not say anything about the capability of the mission.
There's no reason for us to think that there is an amount of investment that will make a flesh based mission equal in capability to an unmanned mission (with the same investment). There is no reason to think that, since nobody has been able to define what it is that flesh can do that can't be done better by a robot given the conditions (near vacuum, devastating cold, deadly radiation, low gravity).
You know what they say: whilst humans clean the toilets on the space station, robots are leaving the solar system.
It's not about space. It's about not-Earth.
A technicality. It's a spiritual fervour all the same. A fervour that not everybody feels.
For most practical purposes, Earth has no more undiscovered continents, no more unexplored territory, and no more absolute wilderness.
But that's been the case for probably 10000 years. When was the last time we found an unsettled continent of any significance? Greenland? How are we to judge the motivations of those ancient people? Probably they moved along not because of some intrinsic need to 'explore' but for entirely practical reasons: disputes, better game, climate change.
I think you overstate the case -- for the present.
Thought experiment: Imagine you could magically transport several humans to Mars along with all the shelter and supplies they needed. Naturally, you could also use your magic transporter to transport a robotic vehicle. Which would be more valuable?
Why would I engage in a thought experiment where rocket technology is magically advanced yet machine autonomy mysteriously degrades to the state it was 10 years ago? That is irrational.
At present, the humans would be a better choice due to their greater behavioral flexibility and autonomy.
Unpredictable behaviour is a liability. We don't send astronauts somewhere and say "sure fred, just do whatever you like". Semi-autonomy is the ideal. We can already build machines which are semi-autonomous enough to drive around on Mars.
At present the state of space transport technology favors sending robots to Mars exclusively. But how do we advance space transport technology to make the manned trip desirable?
The more fundamental question is why. This question has not been answered yet.
No, we're not doing human level science on Mars. Opportunity, the previous generation rover, has taken 10 years to travel 25 miles. Which is only slightly further than how far the Lunar Rover for Apollo 17 travelled (22 miles) over the course of 4.5 hours.
Notably, when the Apollo astronauts wanted to cover a lot of ground in a short amount of time they used a machine. If we built the Lunar Rover today and attached modern guidance software and some cameras/LIDAR it would, again, travel 40 kms in 4.5 hours. It's speed had nothing to do with the humans aboard.
See Standard Response A.
Odd turn of phrase. What made you think that people were trying to convince you?
Why are you posting then?
Because it's an interesting subject to me, and I enjoy debate, and I enjoy being challenged by contrary opinion. I said that your turn of phrase "I'm not convinced" is odd, because of the context. Plans to send humans to Mars have not advanced for 30 years. We are no closer than we were in 1975. The reason, when it comes down to it, is that as a species, we are not convinced by the case put forward that we ought to do it. It's not inevitable that we are going to go there. Quite the opposite. Nevertheless I'm not couching your arguments as an attempt to convert me to your cause. There's no burden of proof here.
We can look at Apollo to see what human-level exploration and research looks like.
Yes. Having achieved the aim of 'beating the Ruskies' Apollo was cancelled. All too human I would say.
I find it disingenuous to equate human-level exploration with no exploration at all.
But that is a strawman. You disappoint me.
This article is about the other kind of missions, where you send flesh, and make a great leap.
It isn't a great leap, because sending flesh serves no purpose. We achieve the same by sending a probe with a piece of steak attached. What about the piece of steak makes sending it a 'great leap'.
I know, it's a tough subject, but for historical reference and comparison, I suggest to look up the race to the Moon.
The purpose of going to the moon (as stated by Kennedy) was to beat the Soviets at something. Mission accomplished. Having beaten the Soviets, Apollo was cancelled, because it served no purpose.
I don't care about beating the Russians to Mars.
Predictability and adaptability. A backhoe is good for very few things. In the same way, the Curiosity is only good at what it was designed to do. It can't adapt.
And yet, Curiousity has perfomed more science than all the manned missions ever put together.
Humans, on the other hand can take the tools provide and experiment outside of pre-planned parameters.
Only in a very limited way. Humans can't take a shovel and repair a leaky door seal. Humans can't adapt to life in a vacuum. Humans can't adapt to low gravity, it eats their bones and destroys their eyesight and atrophies the cardiovascular system. Which is why we don't send humans on long missions. Inability to adapt.
If something unexpected comes up, we have to build a whole new machine to deal with that and then we have to send it there.
Sounds like a plan.
Except we need to colonize space.
No we don't. There is a vast difference between the things you want (in the manner of a little girl wanting a unicorn), and the things that humanity needs (food, shelter et. al). We aren't going to spend trillions of dollars genetically modifying a horse to make a species of unicorn just because some little girl wants one. The same applies to your desire to see a space colony.
Why the delay? You have something better to do?
Well, yes, you can move along slowly and use the time to analyse the stream of data coming back to determine whether to change direction. If we wanted to go faster, we could send robots that went faster. No biggie,
What could possibly be a better use of your time than the greatest exploration mankind has ever undertaken?
Sorry, what does Cassini/Huygens have to do with it?
I think you are grossly underestimating the amount of hand holding going on from mission control here on Earth.
And this is a bad thing because ...? [insert rational answer here].
I don't think there will or has been a 'great leap' forward, just progress commensurate with the resources invested. In terms of humans vs machines, it is certainly not an either / or proposition. You talk as if we never send probes, robots and machines. We do, many of them and are planning many more, but currently we do not have remote tech anywhere near as sophisticated as a human in terms of adaptability and independence.
At this stage, everybody knows that unmanned missions are the future. Largely, they are the past as well. Human missions reached as far as the moon - not quite out of the earths gravity well. Unmanned missions from the same era reached mars, jupiter, saturn, and right now are analysing the heliopause. Right now, unmanned missions are about to LAND ON A COMET, and visit Pluto. On the other side, we hope to be able to continue sending humans to the ISS, a satellite in LEO. This is the magnitude of difference between machine capability and flesh: The distance between Earth and Pluto.
The Opportunity Mars rover has covered 25 miles in years. The Apollo 17 rover covered 22 miles in a few hours. Whilst sending a human is an order of magnitude more complicated than sending a rover, it would also currently be an order of magnitude more useful. I
That is a ridiculous measure. How fast do you think MAVEN is going? Voyager? Cassini? How fast does the MRO travel over the surface of Mars - having completely mapped the surface of mars in less than a year (how long would it take a human, on foot, to do that). RIGHT NOW, there are autonomous cars that can drive better than the average human. You don't think we could send a vehicle to another planet capable of moving faster than 22 miles an hour? The reason we don't, is of course, because there is no need.
It is also something a great many people would like to see, and a great many people are willing to pay for. The inspirational effect of the Apollo landings cannot be underestimated, truly one of mankind's greatest achievements and a massive boost to the prestige of science and engineering.
In fact, Apollo was cancelled. Why? Not popular enough, Why aren't we sending humans to Mars? Because not enough people are convinced that it is a good idea.
However, the Voyager probe for example, was also a tremendous achievement and I am not sure where these people are who regard that as an 'illegitimate' mission.
No need to look beyond this article, which calls a manned mission to mars a "great leap forward". It's not a great leap forward by any reasonable measure unless we can find a rational reason why we need to send flesh. Flesh based missions are the steam era of travel. Sure, it's nostalgic, hence the frequent references to a Apollo, a program cancelled in the 1970s because it was drifting and unpopular. But we no longer rely on steam for our actual daily commute. Other forms of travel are just better.
A big part of the reason I'm not convinced is because of how much boosters of unmanned-only exaggerate the capabilities of such machines.
Odd turn of phrase. What made you think that people were trying to convince you?
There's no current machine that can beat a pressure-suited expert on the ground.
There are currently machines on the ground doing science. Aaaand where are the besuited experts currently? Are they on ground? Give us a breakdown on the actual current capability of besuited experts versus machines.
In the meantime, the current desultory effort at studying Mars, means we'll lose at least a whole generation of researchers long before we get to human-level science acquisition on Mars.
We are already doing human level science on Mars. We sent robots. They do science for us.
Worth noting also that a machine with modern sensory equipment and software is going to be far far superior at spotting the "unusual" something as it makes it's way to point X. A human normally has 5 senses he uses to absorb information - but on Mars, this is effectively reduce to one - or less than one, because the light on Mars will fool the human vision into missing things (differentiations) which are actually important. The other senses (hearing, smell, touch, taste) are of no use because the human is ensconced in a suit, in a practical vacuum.
A rover typically operates with multitude of senses simultaneously - senses designed not for roaming about on earth, but for Mars. Vision into the infra red and ultraviolet, spectral analysis. Radiation detectors. Radar. Numerous things it can use to detect out of pattern materials for further investigation.
Give an unmanned mission even half the funding needed for a manned mission and you will get 10x the science of a manned mission.
Strawman
[citation needed]
I think we will never achieve a great leap forward until we come to terms with the fact that what is holding us back from leaping forward is the irrational notion that we need to send flesh for a mission to be legitimate. Sending human flesh to another planet is about as useful long term as sending frozen steak or a banana. We don't insist on using only our hand when building a house: we use tools and machinery. In fact, it is said that the thing that separates us from other species is our tool making. We make tools to achieve the things we want to do, and to advance and make our lives better. The tools for exploring outer space are unmanned probes, robots, machines. Machines that don't require flesh in situ to make them work. 10000 years ago, flesh was needed to dig a hole. Now, we use a back hoe. We don't think of a hole dug by a back hoe as somehow suspect because we didn't dig it by hand. Why is space travel subject to these artificial constraints? Sure: Before the age of computers we didn't imagine machines could be sufficiently autonomous to enable them to be effective, long term in space. But now, we know better. In the 1960s, it was thought the future lay with sending humans into space to move levers. Now, we know better. The humans are just inert luggage. Let's go luggage free.
There is no contradiction. The agnostic believes it is impossible to KNOW, but the agnostic can still BELIEVE.
That would make agnosticism meaningless. Since it is not meaningless, but rather meaningful, and a position held by many thoughtful people, we can assume as a baseline that your conflation is an error.
Notwithstanding that, many (nearly all) theists hold that since deities are not empirical (i.e deities are non-deterministic from our reference frame) it is invalid to expect empirical evidence for a deity, and thus you've classified theists and agnostics together, but also atheists and agnostics together, so there is, in fact, no system of classification at all. Very unsatisfactory!
You've made this mistake by making several false assumptions:
The first assumption is that everyone must have a view. Imagine a child. A child, who has never been presented with the idea of a deity, has not been presented either with the opportunity to either accept or reject the existence of a deity. Neither can the child have decided that such a determination is impossible. Because the child is without knowledge. Ignorant. The child is not a theist, and not an atheist, since, if you asked the child "Is there a God or Gods?" they would only honestly be able to say "I don't know. What is a God?"
The child is without knowledge. They are agnostic.
The second false assumption is to assume that the underlying (fundamental) proposition is about process i.e. how we arrive at a conclusion to the question: "Is there a God or Gods?". This is incorrect. If a deity exists, they exist independently of whether we think they exist, or the process which drew us to that conclusion. If they don't exist, then their non-existence has more authority than the strength of the argument claiming that they do. So (in short) the question "Is there a God or Gods?" concerns not introspective views of the nature of belief, but whether something exists, like a chair, or a star, or a unicorn.
So: "Is there a God or Gods?" Has three potential answers: "I don't know" - Agnosticism. The question of why you don't know is secondary.
"No" - Atheism. The assertion "I have no belief" is not answering the question. No one cares whether you think you lack belief.
"Yes" - Theism.
You are equating belief and knowledge, a common misconception. They are not the same.
According to what ontology? See this classical definition of belief from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...: In this broader sense "belief" simply means the acceptance as true of any cognitive content. . According to the common epistemology, there is no difference even in the general case. Since the question of a deity (or lack thereof) is in the non-deterministic space, with no empirical evidence either way to guide us. Therefore assertions on the matter e.g. "This a deity" or "There is no deity" are not expressions of knowledge, but belief.
Agnostic means "without knowledge". It is the stance that we can not know whether god exists or not.
Or more accurately, that we/you do not know whether or not a deity exists.
An agnostic atheists holds that we can not know whether or not god exists, and lacks belief in god.
An agnostic theist holds that we can not know whether or not god exists, and holds a belief in god.
But here you definition is self contradictory. If an agnostic believes that it is impossible to know whether or not there is a deity, then they cannot simultaneously believe there is/is no deity.
Mars has some huge positives, namely the fact that it's not Earth. Think of it as an offsite backup for the human race.
Colonizing Antarctica would be like making a backup of your computer on a USB stick and then leaving it plugged in.
If you were my backup guy, I'd fire you. Your backup plan is analogous to moving (not copying, moving) a few gigabytes of a petabyte production system onto a usb stick, and then storing that usb stick in a ziplock bag under an iceberg on the arctic circle. This is not a good backup plan, owing to the following:
But think about it. Who the hell wants to live in an underground colony on Earth, permanently? You're not gonna get many volunteers.
Umm. Where do you think the Mars colonists will live? Mars is bathed in radiation, and it is, for all intents and purposes, a vacuum. To live on Mars is to live underground. On Earth, you could shelter underground and then return to the surface to live, after only a few days, should a Chicxulub type event ever occur. And then, back to business. On Mars, you are underground until your colony dies out, which it will.
And I guarantee *nobody* is going to fund it. Living underground in Kansas has zero glamour. Like it or not, humans love exploring new places and thanks to sci-fi, Mars has a tremendous romantic value.
No it doesn't. There is little, if any, public feeling in favour of a Mars colony. There is a small group of enthusiasts who project their feelings onto others. Short term enthusiasm will not sustain a venture on this scale. If these enthusiasts get their way and a tentative Mars colony is established, it will soon become obvious to everyone that Mars is boring and deadly and life for the colonist there is worse than living in a hut in Antarctica. At least in Antarctica you can go outside. I'd give that colony a year at most before funding is cut off.
Perhaps they have never even thought about the topic at all (no thoughts == no knowledge). Nor do they form their identity through comparison with others.
These are not the issue, though.
I assure you it's an issue for agnostics. A taxonomy of belief which excludes/ignores a whole group of people or classifies them under positions which they strenuously disagree with is an invalid taxonomy.
If they hold a belief in a god or gods, they are theist. If they don't, they are atheist.
Incorrect.
"I have no belief" is not a valid answer to the question "Is there a deity or deities?" If there is a deity, it exists independently of what people believe, because belief doesn't actualise the deity into being, and non-belief doesn't cause the deity to stop existing.
There are only 3 possible answers to the question: is there a deity of deities:
1. Yes (Theism)
2. No (Atheism)
3. I don't know (Agnosticism)
Is there a difference between knowledge and belief when it comes to assertions re: the existence of deities?
Yes. Always.
Knowledge is based, either directly or through a proxy, upon known facts that are some combination of repeatable, consensually experiential, and testable. Sound travels at a particular speed in our atmosphere. This is knowledge.
Beliefs are based upon faith, and cannot be proven, although they can be described and so passed along. Animals cross the rainbow bridge when they die. This is belief.
According to this definition then the statement there is no deity would qualify as belief, since it is not based on anything repeatable, consensually experiential, and testable and is in fact based upon faith, and cannot be proven, although [it] can be described and so passed along.
Correct?
So then a lack of belief and a lack of knowledge are the same (agnosticism == no belief).
Agnostics that entertain any measure of belief are theists.
I don't think Agnostics are prevaricating between theism and atheism. Perhaps they have never even thought about the topic at all (no thoughts == no knowledge). Nor do they form their identity through comparison with others.
So whilst it is correct to say "atheists lack a belief in a god or gods" it is incorrect to say "atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods".
Sure, find a better survey lol.
Not my job to prove your assertions. And if your assertion was correct, there would be theories that these scientists have articulated, and you would be able to describe those theories and the observational basis for them. You can't, I conclude your/their assertion "there is no recent warming trend"? is bunk.
Find out what those 3% are thinking, because I don't know.
You said you did know. You said they were claiming there hasn't been a warming trend. Here.