Total Members Voted: 54
Quote from: Twark_Main on 06/12/2020 11:20 pmWhere is the "there's not enough information to conclude any of the above conclusions" option?Sure. That would be “something else”. And you hit it just right. So essentially you are saying that there would not be enough information to conclude anything. But then hypothetically, it isn’t clear why the President would have announced anything because then nothing could have been concluded or recommended to have been done in response. So nothing else happens or should happen unless fully vetted and agreed to proof is provided, along with the approved conclusions that you are required to comply with. I can see how that may be an option). The How much proof/information do you require to make a mere conclusion?
Where is the "there's not enough information to conclude any of the above conclusions" option?
No I am not a scientist. Not everyone on Earth is a scientist. Not everyone should be a scientist.But I am trying to figure out how much information may be needed in order to generate a conclusion. For me, I was able to draw a conclusion off of one data point. But maybe others would not.I have seen scientists make conclusions without any data.
But wondering how much information is needed in this regard to make a conclusion.
With the scientific method, the collection of data is performed so that a hypothesis can be confirmed. If true then conclusions based on the originating hypothesis may be generated. Data collection for the sake data collection is a boondoggle.
So if one were to search for DNA with Mars samples, that conveys that the originating hypothesis assumes previous ancient life on Earth could be found on Mars. The goal would be to conclude that Earth already visited Mars. Or that life on Earth and Mars have some common characteristics that are both composed by DNA. A very grand assumption and hypothesis.
So essentially you are saying that there would not be enough information to conclude anything.
But then hypothetically, it isn’t clear why the President would have announced anything because then nothing could have been concluded or recommended to have been done in response.
So nothing else happens or should happen unless fully vetted and agreed to proof is provided, along with the approved conclusions that you are required to comply with. I can see how that may be an option.
How much proof/information do you require to make a mere conclusion?
That's called "jumping to conclusions," and it's not really something to be proud of.Scientists think in the way nature forces you to think: carefully, and with a keen grasp of the limits of your own knowledge. If they're truly making "conclusions without any data," they may be scientists but they're not using scientific thinking.
This quote from a link above was enlightening:Quote Governments do not give money to scientists so that they can tinker around and do whatever they want. So a scientist applying for a grant needs to know what he is doing. This forces everyone to be in a hypothesis-driven mode from the beginning and thereby leads to less transformative ideas in the long run. (Hat tip to Mehmet Toner for this point.)I think I’m stuck with my thinking and trying to resolve differences between actual conclusions and hypothetical conclusions.
Governments do not give money to scientists so that they can tinker around and do whatever they want. So a scientist applying for a grant needs to know what he is doing. This forces everyone to be in a hypothesis-driven mode from the beginning and thereby leads to less transformative ideas in the long run. (Hat tip to Mehmet Toner for this point.)
I guess if I jump to a conclusion that life doesn’t exist, then I can colonize Mars in an unlimited way. But then if I can’t jump to that conclusion and have to assume life existed, I have to practice unlimited caution to the point that one cannot do colonization.
So what does the scientific process do when other scientists have already jumped to a conclusion?
There won’t be any ability to make genuine conclusions later after all hope of collecting usable data is actively/thoroughly destroyed at a local level. So given some plans, if one does not rapidly gather evidence now, it won’t happen later (circa 2033+).
Assume that trace evidence of life is found from materials that originated from the surface of Mars. A singular data point at a single time/location is announced by the President of the United States by all major news outlets and purveyors of nightly news.What would need to be done next? (poll) What does this mean?
Quote from: Mr. Scott on 06/12/2020 08:03 pmAssume that trace evidence of life is found from materials that originated from the surface of Mars. A singular data point at a single time/location is announced by the President of the United States by all major news outlets and purveyors of nightly news.What would need to be done next? (poll) What does this mean?It is intresting to know which Companies are working in the sphere of colonisating of Mars? I know one and that is Space X. And as we can see Elon have strongly armshaking with the missions wich he started
Quote from: Mr. Scott on 06/16/2020 01:57 pmThis quote from a link above was enlightening:Quote Governments do not give money to scientists so that they can tinker around and do whatever they want. So a scientist applying for a grant needs to know what he is doing. This forces everyone to be in a hypothesis-driven mode from the beginning and thereby leads to less transformative ideas in the long run. (Hat tip to Mehmet Toner for this point.)I think I’m stuck with my thinking and trying to resolve differences between actual conclusions and hypothetical conclusions. (Emphasis mine). No such thing. That's just a hypothesis.QuoteI guess if I jump to a conclusion that life doesn’t exist, then I can colonize Mars in an unlimited way. But then if I can’t jump to that conclusion and have to assume life existed, I have to practice unlimited caution to the point that one cannot do colonization. It is literally impossible to prove no life exists on Mars without literally turning over every rock and checking it etc. All you can say is that it is very unlikely there is life there. It is then a judgement call on the remaining level of planetary protection required.QuoteSo what does the scientific process do when other scientists have already jumped to a conclusion?You grumble about them to your colleagues, you argue with them at conferences, you send in dissenting comments on their published work, you poorly review grants based on that conclusion, etc etc. There are no rules. It's an organic process.
Signs of Recent Volcanic Eruption on Mars Hint at Habitats for LifeNot thought to be volcanically active, Mars may have experienced an eruption just 53,000 years ago.Previous research has hinted at volcanic eruptions on Mars 2.5 million years ago. But a new paper suggests an eruption occurred as recently as 53,000 years ago in a region called Cerberus Fossae, which would be the youngest known volcanic eruption on Mars...Such volcanic activity could melt subsurface ice, providing a potential habitable environment for living things.'To have life, you need energy, carbon, water and nutrients,' Dr. Anderson said. 'And a volcanic system provides all of those.'
1 Ancient life on Earth once visited Mars2 Ancient life on Earth colonized Mars then returned to Earth3 Life on Earth existed first, but was invaded by life on Mars4 Life on Earth invaded Mars, but destroyed all life on Mars long ago5 Life originated somewhere else (e.g. Phaeton), but colonized Mars and Earth. But Mars life was destroyed.6 Life originated from Mars.7 Something else.
Quote1 Ancient life on Earth once visited Mars2 Ancient life on Earth colonized Mars then returned to Earth3 Life on Earth existed first, but was invaded by life on Mars4 Life on Earth invaded Mars, but destroyed all life on Mars long ago5 Life originated somewhere else (e.g. Phaeton), but colonized Mars and Earth. But Mars life was destroyed.6 Life originated from Mars.7 Something else.How would you test 1-6?2-5 are also unnecessarily complex without strong evidence, e.g. fail Occam's razor7 how about Life on Mars originated independently? How would you test this?
Quote from: Forrest White on 11/30/2020 10:51 amIf there could a life on Mars in the past - we would definitely find the signs to prove that someone was there, but still, we have nothing. Only the theories how aliens could possibly look like. If someone enters the Earth, he probably will finds the sings of life, right? What do you see?
If there could a life on Mars in the past - we would definitely find the signs to prove that someone was there, but still, we have nothing. Only the theories how aliens could possibly look like. If someone enters the Earth, he probably will finds the sings of life, right?
Really bad vote options. The op is so hung up on pan spermia, 2 independent trees of life isn't even an Option
Fascinating article from last month showing evidence for fungi in a 70 page article. Getting a lot of very harsh reviews. One author now doubling down with a second 107 page article (June 2021) about lichens on Mars. Fungi on Mars? Evidence of Growth and Behavior From Sequential Imageshttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rhawn-Joseph/publication/351252619_Fungi_on_Mars_Evidence_of_Growth_and_Behavior_From_Sequential_Images/links/60b1127d92851cd0d9809bb6/Fungi-on-Mars-Evidence-of-Growth-and-Behavior-From-Sequential-Images.pdf?origin=publication_detail Lichens on Mars vs the Hematite Hoax. Why Life Flourishes on the Radiation-Iron-Rich Red Planet.https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rhawn-Joseph/publication/352330548_Lichens_on_Mars_vs_the_Hematite_Hoax_Why_Life_Flourishes_on_the_Radiation-_Iron-Rich_Red_Planet/links/60cc22a9458515dc178cd0de/Lichens-on-Mars-vs-the-Hematite-Hoax-Why-Life-Flourishes-on-the-Radiation-Iron-Rich-Red-Planet.pdf?origin=publication_detailQuote…Given evidence documenting biological residue in Martian meteorites, biological activity in soil samples, seasonal increases in methane and oxygen which parallel biological fluctuations on Earth, and pictorial and quantitative morphological evidence of stromatolites fossilized tube worms and metazoans, growth of mushrooms and fungi, and vast colonies of rock-dwelling lichens, it is concluded that the evidence is obvious: There is life on Mars.
…Given evidence documenting biological residue in Martian meteorites, biological activity in soil samples, seasonal increases in methane and oxygen which parallel biological fluctuations on Earth, and pictorial and quantitative morphological evidence of stromatolites fossilized tube worms and metazoans, growth of mushrooms and fungi, and vast colonies of rock-dwelling lichens, it is concluded that the evidence is obvious: There is life on Mars.