Friday, August 05, 2005





Since the Face on Mars has generated a fair number of comments here lately, I thought I'd remind everyone to take a look at my itemized "debunking" tactics. (Don't worry; a more expansive version is forthcoming.)
Posted by at

19 comments:

Mac said...

Make sure you have absolutely no credentials or expertise in any of the following areas: geology, planetary geology, space science, image processing, archeology, statistics.

This might be vaguely humorous if it weren't totally, patently wrong.

The people who have made useful contributions to the artificiality argument have precisely these qualifications. I'm thinking of guys like McDaniel, Crater, Brandenburg, Torun, Carlotto, Ness, Van Flandern, Fleming, etc.

But wait -- I sense another wise-ass remark in the works...

12:41 PM
Unknown said...

I know I'm totally un-certified in those areas, but I've certainly taken the time to teach myself how to do the things I do, which is more than I can say for a lot of the anomaly hunters I've come across.

Only two lay-researchers I'm aware of have taught themselves how to do Shape from Shading analysis, outside of Mark Carlotto's professional scientific studies. I'm one of them, and I even have a 3D "face" rendering printed in Hoagland's recent edition of "Monuments".

I think I'm entitled to the animosity I harbor, even though the reasons themselves have been eclipsed by even greater absurdities from the TEM camp.

8:03 PM
Carol Maltby said...

I can't think of a single Mars anomalist who wouldn't acknowledge Richard Hoagland's contributions in laying the groundwork for everything else that has come along. His place in the history of non-mainstream Mars research is assured.

That said, there are a lot of people who are not happy about much of what has been promoted by The Enterprise Mission in the last 5 years or so. But Dante, you've shown yourself to be too unfamiliar with the basics of the field to be making assertions.

Mac,

I thought I emailed you with several suggestions for the debunker list, but I don't see any in my mail files from around that date. Do you remember what they were?

12:11 AM
Unknown said...

yes, w.m.bear.

like he said, dante... even I have never represented myself as more than an amateur researcher. I don't know anyone who's misrepresented their skills at this point, but I do know a few I'd accuse of intellectual dishonesty... unfortunately, most of them are on the debunking side of the fence.

I'm ambivalent, holding on to the hope that someday we'll find something so blatant that even the current crop of debunkers will have to concede the possibility. I'm not holding my breath for them (the debunkers) though. It's a mindset every bit as insidious as that of the true believers.

9:45 AM
Carol Maltby said...

They always put on their best Herr Doktor Freud voices to tell us about the psychological hardwiring that humans have for pareidolia, for face recognition, and for organizing our perceptions into patterns.

Yet they avoid discussing the relevance of psychological terms like denial, cognitive dissonance, and prosopagnosia.

Wonder why that is?

If we don't see patterns, we have few options outside of institutionalization. Without patterns everything is random and acausal -- we cannot learn from experience, we cannot expect our perceptions of the world to have any coherence.

That's how science operates, by looking for repeating patterns.

So it's not that patterns are the issue, it's who's the gatekeeper of which patterns are valid and which aren't.

11:07 AM
Unknown said...

Believe or choose not to believe whatever you wish, Dante. Nobody is able to confirm or deny these things you ask, we can only point you to places that should raise more questions, and help you realise that answers are something that not even the experts possess.

If you're looking for someone to harass, try being more critical of those who you believe in. If these things can still stand up to honest scrutiny (and perhaps introspection), then you're one step closer to truly being a know it all.

3:04 PM
Ken said...

"Its not a matter of belief, Saucerrunny, thats just the problem. The whole face thing has this "I want to believe" thing about it, just like Billy Meier or Roswell."

hehe. the pot calling the kettle black, fer sure! (Insert "disbelieve" in place of "believe" above)

3:36 PM
Ken said...

"So, given a chance to make his case before a NASA/JPL/CalTech sponsered conference, all he can come up with is something that "suggests a natural explanation" anyway!!"

No, this is not exactly what Carlotto is saying. His point is that, looked at one way the evidence may point to a natural explanation, but that there are sufficient inexplicabilities coupled with other evidences which may in fact suggest artificiality. He is not saying that what is seen is artificial beyond a shadow of a doubt; he is merely being *genuinely scientific* by insisting that further investigation is warranted to test the artificiality hypothesis. But further investigation in this direction is precisely what the folks at JPL/NASA -- i.e., your "qualified professionals" -- are refusing to do.

3:55 PM
Ken said...

I think your skepticism stems from an unexamined, unconscious assumption that intelligent life is a very rare phenomenon -- if not an absolutely unique one. Hence even though it is most improbable that natural process should produce perfect parallelograms, squares, rectilinear buttresses, recurrent five-sided formations, etc. -- you still find the geologic explanation more believable than the (much more probable) notion that these were designed by intelligences similar to our own.

You must recognize and then justify your assumption that intelligent life in the cosmos is rare, or that human beings are a unique phenomenon. Only by building that case *first* -- and by using that as a backdrop for further speculation -- can you legitimately argue that what we are seeing are indeed merely the products of nature. Apart from that I think that your attempts at explaining away geometric anomalies on Mars is very weak. Like I said, when we find perfect squares and parallelograms on Earth -- or five-sided formations with equal angles and rectinilear buttresses -- they are almost DEFINITELY artificial. The burden of proof would rest heavily on the shoulders of someone who came along and contended that they were the result of natural process.

At this point I suspect you will respond by saying that you have no problem with the notion that there might be other intelligent life in the cosmos besides our own -- and that, in fact, you think that the probability of extraterrestrial beings existing is fairly high. But then your words would only indicate that there is a logical disconnect in your thinking; there lies a *fundamental contradiction* between your sphere of thinking in this area and that which you demonstrate in the area concerning Martian anomalies.

Of course, I could also employ Occam's razor *here* and opt for the most simple explanation -- which is that you are beginning to see the reasoning behind arguments in favor of artificiality -- but you are obstinately continuing to argue the contrary in order to salvage your pride (which is, according to my estimate, a stupidity).

5:03 PM
Unknown said...

I tried shaving with Occam's razor once. I think his wife used it on her legs before me, because I cut the hell out of my face.

5:26 PM
Mac said...

Actually, when Occam's Razor isn't handy, I can usually make do with Occam's Scissors.

5:32 PM
Ken said...

The problem that I see with the scientific community in general is that of *intellectual impoverishment*. JPL/NASA suffers from this malady. I think that many "professionals" dismiss the artificiality hypothesis -- and that, flippantly, carelessly -- because the idea of a lost civilization on Mars *feels* "out there", outlandish. Without any further thought (such as whether or not such a feeling is justified), they take it for granted that since it feels that way it must as a matter of course BE that way. In their minds the verdict is "case closed". You see, just because someone can memorize and classify different types of rocks (or count atoms and quarks, or explain the intricasies of DNA) does not necessarily mean that he/she has ever learned the difficult and timeless art of *thinking*. At one time the goal of education was to free the mind, to teach men and women to think for themselves most of all; today the emphasis has shifted from the expansion of thought to that of specialization. Education is seen more as a means to help a person *function* in any given field. Again, this brings us back to the problem of a creeping, technocratic mentality.

Perhaps the worst "sin" of all against the intellect is committed when these scientists presume to have the last word on matters (such as whether or not the Martian anomalies are artificial) because they feel themselves to be "qualified". What qualifies them? "I have a DEGREE in astronomy, astrophysics, geology," is their answer. Okay, but do they know how to thoughtfully process all that information in a larger conceptual framework? Blank out.

7:25 PM
Ken said...

One laughs at an idea right off because, on a subconscious level, he/she harbors contrary assumptions. Woe to science when our scientists laugh at ideas -- and then dismiss them entirely without a second thought.

"It looks to me as if there maybe artificial structures on Mars."

"(Laughs) Get real! Ruins on Mars?!"

"No, really; how else do we account for recurrent geometric shapes?"

"They're rocks. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got more practical things to spend my time on--"

8:17 PM
Carol Maltby said...

Occam's Razor is a suggestion, not a law.

I think the scientific mainstream is worried that actually looking at claims of Martian artifacts scientifically would be too close to Occam's Bikini Wax.

10:55 PM
Ken said...

"The reality is that most people who _really_ have the curiosity, intellect and motivation, _will_ go through the formal learning process - they _will_ have the degrees in astronomy, physics, computer science, chemistry etc. Do you really understand how much unique effort and "thinking" is required to obtain a PhD in the physical sciences?"

I agree that most thinkers have a formal education; my point was that a formal education does not necessarily lead to thinking. In my own experience I've met quite a few persons with PhD's in any given field (e.g., chemistry, geology) who are very good at what they do -- but are not otherwise thinkers by any means.

"No, scientists are not in general "intellectually impoverished" - in fact I would argue that they are amongst the least impoverished collection of people you will meet."

IMO we are living in a generally weak intellectual age, and our scientists share in this impoverishment no less than anyone else. We are no longer producing the explosive brilliance which was typical of thinkers during the Renaissance (for instance).

"However, I would have to say that very few scientific groups anywhere share the view that the Cydonian structures on Mars are artificial."

The global scientific community may not yet have begun to realize the evidences for artificiality which seem to be reflected in some of the photos of Cydonia. My gripe with NASA is not their slowness to realize this so much as their apparent refusal to do so.

"life processes _are_ rare when compared to geological ones."

Expound on this point, please.

11:28 PM
Ken said...

"Your opinion is that we live in a "generally weak intellectual age". How do you justify this? Do you consider Dawkins, Penrose, Hawkins, Thorne, Feymann, Crighton, Freedman, Aubry, Witten, just to name a few, "intellectually weak" in comparison to previous eras??"

IMO the intellectual strength of an age should be measured according to how *novel* the ideas are which thinkers produce. The persons you just named (or could name in addition) are mostly producing twists and variations on existing themes and ideas. This is not to say that *nothing* they come up with is original -- but that the *degree* of originality exhibited by them is relatively small in comparison to what was turned out by some thinkers of bygone ages. Why do you suppose that there are no truly revolutionary ideas being dished out? Where are the Kants? The Newtons and Einsteins? The Nietzsches, the Darwins, the Freuds, the Jungs? We are making scientific progress, but not in the leaps and bounds which were made possible by the intellectual giants of the past.

"I would suggest that the reality is that these thinkers are researching areas so far removed from day-to-day reality, that you don't understand, or haven't spent the time to understand, what truely remarkable insights they provide us."

If their research was so far removed from day-to-day reality, people would not understand their books. As it is, they have a fairly wide audience. Do these gentlemen have insights? Of course. Are the effects of their insights as powerful as something that came from Kant, Darwin or Freud? I don't think so.

"Is this because they are not as brilliant as the early 20th C researchers? It is more to do with the fact that science is just not done like that any more."

I have been arguing that *how* science is done is every bit as important as the fact that it is done at all. I am not harping on anybody's intelligence or potential for brilliance. I suppose I can put things this way: *there is less room these days for the scientific spirit to breathe*. In our well-meant effort to nurture professionalism and specialization, we've managed to trammel the scientific spirit in the bureaucratic compartments of corporations, unwittingly setting limits on it with pragmatic interests. NASA provides an excellent example of this very thing, where different departments compete for funds and recognition. I guarantee you that *this* has had a lot to do with NASA's apparent apathy where the investigation of the artificiality hypothesis is concerned. As it is (unfortunately), NASA is not an isolated instance.

"My earlier statement "life processes _are_ rare when compared to geological ones" is IMO, a self-evident truth. There are more things not alive than alive. So, all other things being equal (there's that phrase again!), a process or structure is more likely to be the consequence of some natural action."

I agree that geological processes are more common overall in the cosmos than biological ones -- but we have no idea just how biologically active Mars may have been in the past. There's no justification for assuming that it has always been a cold, dead world. For all we know, there COULD have been intelligent life on Mars at one time. If we find perfect geometric shapes ON EARTH -- such as a parallelogram (with four perfectly aligned mounds at each corner), or the outline of a perfectly symmetrical square, or a large symmetrical enigma complete with five sides, equal angles and rectrilinear buttresses -- along with other curious geometric shapes all within the same area -- would you begin by assuming that these are natural formations? I bet you anyone who assumes that they are *artificial* would be right 98% of the time. Geology can produce wierd shapes and mimic artificiality, but when it does so it happens by sheer accident. What are the odds of so many perfect geometric shapes forming ACCIDENTALLY in one place, let alone even *one* perfectly geometric shape? I am not saying that what we are seeing in Cydonia are artificial beyond the shadow of a doubt, but I think that they certain DO suggest the remarkable POSSIBILITY (*IMO* one which borders on probability) that they may be artificial. When scientists take one glance at these photos and then dismiss them offhand as merely odd geology, this is to me yet another symptom of our intellectually weak age. Their vision (so important to the spirit of science) does not extend far enough; their sight is limited to what is immediately observable before them (but it's more practical and efficient that way, isn't it?).

3:24 AM
Ken said...

"There was a good deal of sloppy thinking in those days too - I would argue that Descartes, Leibniz, Newton and co were not indicative of the general standard of the Renaissance. For each one, there were a score of Bacons, and for each of those, a multitude of "new thinkers""

Yup. Find me *ONE* thinker today who is comparable in stature to Francis Bacon.

3:31 AM
Ken said...

"they all loose their symmetry when carefully examined without assumptions."

Has this happened yet? Have the Mars anamolies been "carefully examined without assumptions" so as to "loose their symmetry"?

"To believe that vaguely symmetric geometric-looking structures on another planet are artificial requires the a priori belief that it sustained intelligent life, not the other way around."

IMO they appear more than just *vaguely* symmetric. In many cases several photos have been taken of these anamolies from different altitudes, different angles and with increasingly better resolution. In the final case perhaps one ought to *dare* to believe that what we are looking at may indeed ruins of some sort. I see nothing else that would give us the inspiration and driving incentive to gather the funds, attempt the journey and quite possibly make the most important discovery in human history. Think Columbus and Cortez (if such a capacity to realize dreams has any place left in our increasingly complex, organized and integrated society).

I find your overall reasoning to be sound, however. I capitulate. ;)

9:51 AM
Carol Maltby said...

"Neither I nor anyone else can tell you if Ed Witten, or Francis Crick, or David Deutsch will similarly become historical figures in the next 200 years"

But it is easier to see how a scientist like Rosalind Franklin could be marginalized and left out of the running.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SCfranklinR.htm

Sometimes it is as instructive to see how the process of scientific canonisation works against people as for people.

2:23 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)