[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Please comment
Alexander Sheftman's post does demonstrate an interesting and often
overlooked point. When the Martian life story broke, the press usually
reported it as if the general population was aware that many scientists
already believe that we have meteorites from Mars. I remember listening to
President Clinton's press conference statement and thinking that I had
every reason to believe that this announcement would be met with serious
skepticism.
If I make the out-of-the-blue statement to a person that the a particular
rock here on earth is from Mars (which I have done many times), I would
tend to question the person's hearing if they did not meet my comment with
disbelief, and at the least hesitation. It is a big step to buy the
argument even if one has a science background.
The study of meteorites is rather young when compared to math, biology,
physics, or chemistry. In the history of science, many (maybe most)
discoveries were (and still are) met with disbelief by the population at
large. Even continental drift was met with such skepticism that we as a
society were planning a walk on the moon before the theory of plate
tectonics was finally accepted. History is littered with many examples of
this lack of cultural acceptance of a scientific discovery. We even have a
current list of other science topics that are still under suspect, by
myself included. Examples such as cold fusion, worm holes, nemesis, how
did chondrules form, cryogenics, homeopathy, ESP, UFOs, faster-than-light
travel, a particle being in two places at one time, planet X, meteorites
from Venus, a vaccine for AIDS, an end to world hunger, mapping the human
genetic code, cloning, human origins, the origin of the universe, the
origin of life, the origin of language, the origin of AIDS, the origin of
music, the origin of the mitochondria, the list goes on forever, oh did I
mention the concept of forever, of infinity, etc...
I can't speak for others, but in all my reading about the SNCs, I
personally have no evidence that proves that they are from Mars, only some
seriously effective circumstantial evidence. As a friend of mine once said
when we were discussion SNCs, "Well, if they are not from Mars, than they
are from some place even more impressive!" I agree.
As an science educator, I encounter skepticism as part of my job. But I do
want people to ask questions. When I met Stephen Hawking a while back, I
commented to him that I really see the difference between a child's
questions and an adult's questions (based on the introduction Sagan wrote
for his book "A Brief History of Time"). He took several minutes putting
together his computerized response to me. After a minute or two, he said
that adults forget to ask the important questions because they either don't
want to appear foolish, or they have lost their true curiosity. We need to
keep this curiosity alive, and not squelch it as many of us were taught to
do in the 3rd or 4th grade. This list should be open to all questions
regardless of our current dogma. If somebody choose not to accept evidence
in favor of a certain outcome, so be it. SNCs don't care what people
believe. What if research begins to show they are not from Mars? Will we
be able to break-out of our deeply held Mars-origin belief and accept the
"truth" allowing science to proceed, or will we clutch our primitive
arguments and impede the progress of science?
I encourage all to read the chapter in McSween's Stardust to Planets about
the first speculations of a Martian origin for the SNCs (beginning on page
93). It was not in a lab, but rather over a couple of drinks in a cowboy
bar (where much science takes place).
I asked Everett Gibson (one of the team members who found the evidence for
life on Mars) about his discovery and the impact it has had on his life.
After his response, I felt bad and wanted to apologize for the behavior of
the fellow members of my species. To make an announcement that essentially
changes a world view is a great personal risk, a risk few ever get to
consider. Although his work will now be included in almost all upcoming
science, astronomy, and possibly biology texts, as well as numerous popular
media publications, personal suffering is part of scientific progress, and
he has had his share since the announcement. There are still books in
print that address or question the validity of the works of Darwin,
Galileo, Leibniz, Mendel, Krinov, and many other scientists who are no
longer around to defend themselves.
I believe it is important to remember our place in the nature of science,
of humanity, and ultimately of history. We are each playing our role;
defending what we believe, challenging what we do not believe, supporting
those who we agree with, and now, attacking those we disagree with. We are
part of the cycle of science. SNCs were not invented, just discovered.
They are what they are. If we decode their true origin in my lifetime,
great. If not, I guess I will be carrying just another incorrect belief to
my grave. However, I am comforted knowing I will be in good company since
everyone else will be with me in this.
Martin Horejsi
References: