Author Topic: NASA to Hold Media Call on Evidence of Surprising Activity on Europa  (Read 17135 times)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11162
  • Liked: 2615
  • Likes Given: 1
I would not say that this "confirms" anything. It is "consistent with" other evidence. But a single observation, or a single scientific paper, rarely "confirms" a scientific discovery to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community.

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 248
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 32
I would not say that this "confirms" anything. It is "consistent with" other evidence. But a single observation, or a single scientific paper, rarely "confirms" a scientific discovery to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community.
There's your difference between science and the media. The former generally understands the limitations of any given study, the latter generally does not.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9069
  • UK
  • Liked: 1565
  • Likes Given: 168
I would not say that this "confirms" anything. It is "consistent with" other evidence. But a single observation, or a single scientific paper, rarely "confirms" a scientific discovery to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community.
There's your difference between science and the media. The former generally understands the limitations of any given study, the latter generally does not.

And you donít think that making sweeping generalisations isnít just as bad as the problem you seem to think exists. This recent tweet seems equally applicable to your comment.

https://twitter.com/chrislintott/status/996409057404735488?s=20

Quote
It annoys me that such criticism is aimed at 'journals'. Name and shame specific places, please - it's not all of us!
« Last Edit: 05/15/2018 08:39 PM by Star One »

Offline Welsh Dragon

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 248
  • Liked: 248
  • Likes Given: 32
I would not say that this "confirms" anything. It is "consistent with" other evidence. But a single observation, or a single scientific paper, rarely "confirms" a scientific discovery to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community.
There's your difference between science and the media. The former generally understands the limitations of any given study, the latter generally does not.

And you donít think that making sweeping generalisations isnít just as bad as the problem you seem to think exists. This recent tweet seems equally applicable to your comment.
1) I did not make sweeping generalisations, I clearly added qualifiers. My statement was correct.
2) If you don't think this is a problems you've either never looked at popular coverage of science or done any science yourself (or indeed both).

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9069
  • UK
  • Liked: 1565
  • Likes Given: 168
I would not say that this "confirms" anything. It is "consistent with" other evidence. But a single observation, or a single scientific paper, rarely "confirms" a scientific discovery to the satisfaction of the entire scientific community.
There's your difference between science and the media. The former generally understands the limitations of any given study, the latter generally does not.

And you donít think that making sweeping generalisations isnít just as bad as the problem you seem to think exists. This recent tweet seems equally applicable to your comment.
1) I did not make sweeping generalisations, I clearly added qualifiers. My statement was correct.
2) If you don't think this is a problems you've either never looked at popular coverage of science or done any science yourself (or indeed both).

My issue is rather than identifying a particular publication you merely made a sweeping statement, donít tar everyone with the same brush. If thereís a particular poor piece then name it.

Which is precisely what the tweet I was quoting was saying.
« Last Edit: 05/16/2018 04:03 PM by Star One »

Offline jarnu

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • London
    • linkedin
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 2
Another article from one of the guys working in several future missions.

https://theconversation.com/signs-of-water-plumes-boost-chances-of-finding-life-on-jupiters-moon-europa-96507

It is a good article, a recapitulation of events and how to frame the research within the search of life in the solar system. Also I really like how he grouped together four bodies (Mars, Enceladus, Europa and Titan) as candidates of past, present and future life outside Earth. It's a good way to put the research into context and map future developments in the area.

He couldn't avoid to mention 'funding' at the end. Mars data is coming in a good pace and I hope it will be cheaper to gather data in the future. The other three bodies though...


Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9069
  • UK
  • Liked: 1565
  • Likes Given: 168
Another article from one of the guys working in several future missions.

https://theconversation.com/signs-of-water-plumes-boost-chances-of-finding-life-on-jupiters-moon-europa-96507

It is a good article, a recapitulation of events and how to frame the research within the search of life in the solar system. Also I really like how he grouped together four bodies (Mars, Enceladus, Europa and Titan) as candidates of past, present and future life outside Earth. It's a good way to put the research into context and map future developments in the area.

He couldn't avoid to mention 'funding' at the end. Mars data is coming in a good pace and I hope it will be cheaper to gather data in the future. The other three bodies though...

Shouldnít Pluto also be considered as a possible venue for life?

Offline jarnu

  • Member
  • Posts: 16
  • London
    • linkedin
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 2
Another article from one of the guys working in several future missions.

https://theconversation.com/signs-of-water-plumes-boost-chances-of-finding-life-on-jupiters-moon-europa-96507

It is a good article, a recapitulation of events and how to frame the research within the search of life in the solar system. Also I really like how he grouped together four bodies (Mars, Enceladus, Europa and Titan) as candidates of past, present and future life outside Earth. It's a good way to put the research into context and map future developments in the area.

He couldn't avoid to mention 'funding' at the end. Mars data is coming in a good pace and I hope it will be cheaper to gather data in the future. The other three bodies though...

Shouldnít Pluto also be considered as a possible venue for life?

I'm not an expert at all. But in the article he says salty ocean in contact with sand and rock at the bottom
Quote
...in contrast to some other moons with subsurface oceans Ė including Ganymede and Callisto Ė where the ocean floor is ice.

Maybe this part is important.

Online Alpha_Centauri

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 594
  • England
  • Liked: 203
  • Likes Given: 120
Yes the important point is having an ocean in contact with a rocky mantle.  Pluto's ocean should it exist is not the most suitable.

Tags: