Originally posted by Apass
When somebody claims the wrong things again and again, the scientific comunity does ignore him.
Well there are few scientist in any field that have not supported bad science or bad conclusions by other scientist so should we fire the lot of them?
Of course not but it's obviously easy to attack isolated voices based on the principle that they are not allowed to have a bad track record.
Not only the scientific comunity, but also the rest of the people. That's how things work.
People in the end believe what propaganda sources propagandize them best or in the absence of such sources what suits them best; that's how things
work.
Have you ever thought why Aesop created that fable about the boy who cried the wolf?
He created it to warn people that objective reality can not be altered by perception; just because you do not believe that there is a wolf that
specific time has very little bearing on the reality of the wolfs presence or existence.
I'm not. That's why I choose to ignore MarsAnomalyResearch.
You have not shown me anything to suggest that he engages in deliberate fraud or that is in fact wrong at all. I remember that you set out some pages
for me to check out in that other, rather long and interesting, post related to this and that it did not change my mind; will try get to that post
eventually and address the claims specifically.
Not quite that long, but the point was to take a person who dared to think different that the current dogma.
And that is the thing; he really was not thinking all that differently from the main stream at the time otherwise they would not have accepted it so
quickly. Other notable scientist were engaged in the same area and there is good evidence to suggest that Einstein added very little original if
anything at all; that's if his wife is not the one that put the entire argument together in the first place!
And Einstein is a good example for that. The current dogma was that the light speed is not the same in every reference frame.
Well is it? My personal opinion ( based on more than just this link) is that GR is just too restrictive and that , strangely, tends to be the aim of
the sciences in general.
metaresearch.org...
And also Bohr is a good a example. He postulated that indeed, the electron behaves also as a wave around the nucleus. The current model was of
an planet like electron!
Well as far as i know the wave is just the method of propagation trough spacetime; when you want a 'specific' ( i know) location your going to end
up with a 'particle' like quanta. Just a dabbler in physics so feel free to correct me.
And both Einstein and Bohr got credited for their work. But they could explain a lot of things about the world around us.
They got credited sure but that does not mean what they said are in fact still very useful or even considered true... Explaining the thing itself by
means of physics and maths is pretty damn hard and few manage such; most of what we come up with are useful in the sense that it gives us predictive
powers very much independent of the reality or truth of the approximations and 'facts' employ.
We still have no idea what energy 'is' ( or for that matter does classical EM sciences understand where it comes from; hence the source charge
problem ) but that most certainly did not prevent us from beinb able to predict a whole host of phenomenon with relatively useful accuracy.
Not exactly the same thing with
MarsAnomalyResearch.
Well that depends entirely on how much reading you actually did! Marsanomaly research shows us pictures of tree like growths which suggest that we
should look for standing water or the gases ( in the Martian atmosphere) that we relate to life on Earth. If one considers the site in such light it
becomes readily 'useful', while maybe not in the most scientific sense, as it's pictures leads us to be able to make some predictions for future
investigation. We can almost always interpret data in very many different ways but on MAR the data the interpretation is based on is always firmly in
evidence; what more can or should be expected from someone who investigates reality?
It is impossible to eliminate personal bias ( just ask professional scientist) and that's why scientist must interact to test their conclusions
against those of others.
What alternative possibility is for the 21%oxygen in earth's atmosphere?
Not sure how it's related so feel free to elaborate..
That was not superficially attacking. That was a thorough analysis of current evidence. You are now attaking me for that analysis.
Well imo it was it it's based on the premise that because there could be alternative explanations they are logical and or likely; possible at all. It
is easy enough to introduce factors we have no inkling of but what is the motivation for introducing them without reason?
And you still refuse to show us your research on how those alternative explanations contradict other known facts! (mars being geologicaly dead
is not a known fact, is a supposition)
I was referring to the positive results of the LR experiment on the original Viking missions; many scientist have suggested other ways how the finding
could be achieved but it's never been shown under laboratory conditions that those possible explanations are in fact possible or that they can better
or at all explain the findings.
Yep...and our meteo models take that into account....
No they do not as it's assumed that current weather phenomenon are driven by natural forces without active human intervention to create specific
alterations.
What you are suggesting is a biased approach to do science. A true scientiest will never say The world is flat and then try to find evidence
for that, a true scientist would analyse facts first and then would give some hypotheses that can or cannot be verified.
Then we have very few 'true' scientist on planet Earth and i am certainly not one of them. What we currently observe to be true gives us predictive
powers so we are in fact always assuming a certain possibility more likely than another when busy with our investigation; it's almost impossible not
to have a prior conception of the likely result based on one's prior experience in the field and the problem lies not in that but in disregarding
whatever contradicts prevailing consensus ( in your minds or those of others).
So the proper aproach for life on Mars would be: These are the facts, can there be life on Mars?
Facts rarely are and they are as much the product of prior perception,convention and or consensus as are the likely means we will use to investigate
new phenomenon. Assuming that our current understanding and 'facts' are based on impartial and generally objective views is a big mistake and will
only lead to the investigation of what our current ideas suggest. It's in the end no different than what you suggested i did on this occasion.
Are there other possible sources/explanations for the observed phenomena? If neither hypotesis can be proved 100% (or if you want,
99.999999....%) one can not say that sure, there is life on Mars. That's science!
In as much as science can predict anything i will say that i am certain of life on Mars today.
If you start from : there is life on Mars, you will then chose only the supporting evidence and ignore the other explanations.
Some might do that but it's not the way i like doing things as that leads to other people showing up your ignorance and bias very regularly. Feel
free to check my record on this forum if you think such is the case with my 'method'.
[edit on 19-11-2006 by StellarX]
I have very specific ideas as to where to find ufo's and for that matter who ( no aliens involved) are
operating them. 
