I see Martian people… ALL THE TIME. »« Vadereidolia

I shoulda said POSSIBLE life on Mars

But not necessarily “probable”, or “strongly implied”, as my previous headline “HOLY SHIT, LIFE ON MARS?!” indicated, regardless of the fact that my blog entry itself stated it was only a possibility.  I write this because, in having titled my post as I did, I’m now tangentally related to asshats who declare “life on Mars” like it’s absolute canon truth in 72-point font.  And I should rightly be chastised for my use of the prophylactic question-mark, a tactic made famous most recently by Fox News.  The media has cocked this one up but good, as is the norm when it comes to anything scientific.   And the blogosphere, as always, ranges from the near-perfect, in their coverage of this event as with every other event that’s come before it, through to actually managing to get it more wrong than The Sun.

I really do hope it turns out to be life, however I will not, under any circumstances, apply my world view to the hypothesis.  A real scientist detachedly observes the results of an experiment and learns the truth from them, rather than shoehorning the results into his or her belief system.  Science only works if you’re objective enough to leave your damn belief systems at the door.

Incidentally, it’s why religious folks hate science so much — because they demand that you turn off the credulity for a few minutes, which is obviously a few minutes too long.  I will be better than that, at least.

Comments

  1. says

    Exactly what I meant by the “prophylactic question mark”.  And how Fox News uses it:

    “Democrats: in league with terrorists?”

    Add a question mark, and you can’t be sued for outright fucking lying slander. I’m having a serious geek moment over the Holographic Universe Theory being possible, bringing us one step closer to a Grand Unified Theory, but when I inevitably blog about it, I’m going to make damn sure everyone knows that this is only a possibility, and that while the Holographic Universe Theory is making predictions that are being borne out, it is far too young and untested to be considered a fact (unlike, say, the 150 year old Theory of Evolution, the roughly 140 year old Theory of Radiation, or the 90-odd year old Theory of Plate Tectonics, none of which have been knocked out yet).

  2. Clifton says

    I’m working on a 31 year old “Clifton Langdale is awesome” theory. There are detractors, but none have come up with a good rebuttle.

  3. Clifton says

    And the lesson here is that I shouldn’t try to work and pay attention to something more interesting at the same time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>