Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 9171819
Results 541 to 545 of 545

Thread: What do you think is the most likely explanation for the Fermi paradox?

  1. #541
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    10,250
    Scientists can err, witness Lord Kelvin’s 1895 quote, and Felisa Wolf-Simon’s arsenic-using life. It’s certainly possible there will be both false positives (these have happened) and false negatives.
    Information about American English usage here and here. Floating point issues? Please read this before posting.

    How do things fly? This explains it all.

    Actually they can't: "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, 1895.



  2. #542
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,248
    Quote Originally Posted by swampyankee View Post
    Scientists can err, witness Lord Kelvin’s 1895 quote, and Felisa Wolf-Simon’s arsenic-using life. It’s certainly possible there will be both false positives (these have happened) and false negatives.
    Sure.
    So the Fermi Paradox is just another false one then, eh? (Humour intended here).

  3. #543
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by kzb View Post
    I don't remember it like that at all. I recall President Clinton announcing the discovery of life on Mars. And he was put up there at the request of NASA.

    Whilst I go along with what you say about publicity, the later backtracking must've been embarrassing for all concerned.
    Memory is far from perfect, and if I recall correctly, many news reports at the time missed important details.

    Here is a transcript of his statement:

    https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/clinton.html

    Some key bits:

    This is the product of years of exploration and months of intensive study by some of the world's most distinguished scientists. Like all discoveries, this one will and should continue to be reviewed, examined and scrutinized.
    [...]
    First, I have asked Administrator Goldin to ensure that this finding is subject to a methodical process of further peer review and validation.
    [...]
    Today, rock 84001 speaks to us across all those billions of years and millions of miles. It speaks of the possibility of life. If this discovery is confirmed, it will surely be one of the most stunning insights into our universe that science has ever uncovered. Its implications are as far-reaching and awe-inspiring as can be imagined. Even as it promises answers to some of our oldest questions, it poses still others even more fundamental.
    It was definitely an optimistic statement, but they were careful to include qualifiers.

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  4. #544
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,329
    Quote Originally Posted by Selfsim View Post
    Let's also not forget about the notorious Richard Hoover episode who, in 2011, published a 'paper' in the crank Journal of Cosmology, wherein he claimed evidence in meteorites that life on Earth came from space, in this case, in the form of comet debris. (He's apparently made similar claims six times to date!)

    Then again in the same crank Journal, a 'Rhawn Joseph' published an article in January 2014, concluding that the martian (in situ) rock, dubbed 'Pinnacle Island', was in fact, a living organism.

    The pattern seems clear ... the fixation with 'life must be out there', (which of course provokes the Fermi Paradox), when combined with marginal scientific qualifications, (a BSc in Hoover's case), leads towards pareidolia driven delusions, a life of pseudoscientific crankdom, which then serves to perpetuate the accompanying fixation with the Paradox too (ie: Fermi's) ... which really never was one at all anyway(?)
    The pattern seems clear . . . if we're just discussing the nonsense published in a crank journal. That's no reason to condemn serious research (like that on ALH84001, which has been extensively peer reviewed), or serious discussion about issues like the Fermi paradox.

    Incidentally, we had an extensive discussion about the Journal of Cosmology on this board, and at one point one of their key editors popped in here with a negative comment (they were doing that a lot around the internet, see David Brin's experience with the Journal, for instance, where he tried to peer review a Rhawn Joseph article at their request). My recollection is that JoC initially got some publicity with a mention of one or another of their articles in some major newspapers. But it quickly became known as a crank journal and they later stopped getting mentions from serious news organizations.

    I did a bit of research myself, and it was clear that Rhawn Joseph played a major part in the site. The website formatting was essentially the same as a personal site he had built earlier. He had a lot of ATM science claims. If I recall, he had some steady state eternal universe idea, argued modern evolution was wrong, abiogenesis was impossible, and insisted on panspermia.

    Hoover's claims were very quickly criticized by the science community, and NASA made it clear he wasn't speaking for them. (I think also that he was retired at the time when the JoC article flap happened?)

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  5. #545
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,248
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    The pattern seems clear . . . if we're just discussing the nonsense published in a crank journal. That's no reason to condemn serious research (like that on ALH84001, which has been extensively peer reviewed), or serious discussion about issues like the Fermi paradox.
    Somewhat agreed .. I'm obviously challenging the 'seriousness' of FP discussions about so-called 'issues' though. The FP is only a paradox for philosophical thinkers .. its largely irrelevant for scientific thinkers (the latter of which, includes the proper Astrobiology researchers I've encountered, who are doing great work).
    (Ie: one can't test against a believed-in standard .. so move on testing against one that isn't).

    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn
    Incidentally, we had an extensive discussion about the Journal of Cosmology on this board, and at one point one of their key editors popped in here with a negative comment (they were doing that a lot around the internet, see David Brin's experience with the Journal, for instance, where he tried to peer review a Rhawn Joseph article at their request). My recollection is that JoC initially got some publicity with a mention of one or another of their articles in some major newspapers. But it quickly became known as a crank journal and they later stopped getting mentions from serious news organizations.

    I did a bit of research myself, and it was clear that Rhawn Joseph played a major part in the site. The website formatting was essentially the same as a personal site he had built earlier. He had a lot of ATM science claims. If I recall, he had some steady state eternal universe idea, argued modern evolution was wrong, abiogenesis was impossible, and insisted on panspermia.

    Hoover's claims were very quickly criticized by the science community, and NASA made it clear he wasn't speaking for them. (I think also that he was retired at the time when the JoC article flap happened?)
    Yar .. it pops up occasionally elsewhere in my web forum travels .. and always gets the treatment it deserves. Its 'going-in' position/purpose is just outright anti-science (IMO).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •