A moon of Saturn may have 'tropical' lakes

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

When we have a viable explanation why would you consider an exotic one? Thats not science. I am sure you can agree with me.

As I said it is possible, but beyond an exercize of thought, its silly to seriously think about life being responsible when there are testable alternatives that we know would be responsible. That is not science.

No, that's the science to explain what we are already experiencing, deductive reasoning. We're speaking of science being used to explore what else is possible, inductive reasoning. Both forms of reasoning are "science" but one is used for discovery, the other for understanding what was discovered.

Right. Ignoring the known and mundane explanations for a phenomenon (such as the disappearance of hydrogen and acetylene at Titan's surface) is wrong and "bad science", but there is nothing wrong with considering other "unknown" explanations. After all, that's what science is all about.

One of purpose of science is to ask "what if". There is nothing scientifically wrong with hypothesizing that the reason for this hydrogen flux may possibly be that the hydrogen is being consumed by living organisms. Considering that hypothesis does not make it equally like as the more "known" explanations, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered at all. That is a hypothesis that would then need to be (somehow) tested.

In fact, it would be just as wrong if science ignored the "life" explanation as it would be if they ignored the more prosaic explanations. It is a hypothesis that deserves some scientific consideration.

edit on 6/16/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Well thankfully actual scientists disagree with you.

The absence of detectable acetylene on the Titan surface can very well have a non-biological explanation, said Mark Allen, principal investigator with the NASA Astrobiology Institute Titan team. Allen is based at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. Allen said one possibility is that sunlight or cosmic rays are transforming the acetylene in icy aerosols in the atmosphere into more complex molecules that would fall to the ground with no acetylene signature.

"Scientific conservatism suggests that a biological explanation should be the last choice after all non-biological explanations are addressed," Allen said. "We have a lot of work to do to rule out possible non-biological explanations. It is more likely that a chemical process, without biology, can explain these results - for example, reactions involving mineral catalysts."

So they echo what I say. Life is fine for musing, but there are methods based in actual science that need to be looked at and addressed, and life should be the LAST concept to be addressed. That is science.

Originally posted by PurpleChiten

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

When we have a viable explanation why would you consider an exotic one? Thats not science. I am sure you can agree with me.

As I said it is possible, but beyond an exercize of thought, its silly to seriously think about life being responsible when there are testable alternatives that we know would be responsible. That is not science.

No, that's the science to explain what we are already experiencing, deductive reasoning. We're speaking of science being used to explore what else is possible, inductive reasoning. Both forms of reasoning are "science" but one is used for discovery, the other for understanding what was discovered.

Actually both are inductive. Both start with an observation and try to find ways to explain it. Science is taking those ways and testing them.

What you are suggesting is that we use inductive reasoning and come up with numerous explanations, we test some and find that they account perfectly for the phenomena we experience, then we toss that idea out and come up with a new idea that is unlike anything ever seen, can't be tested, and we decide that is the possible cause. Do you not see how that is not science?

Science would start with the most likely reasons, and test them. When we find an explanation that fully accounts for what we see, we then work off that and keep testing it for errors. We do not toss an explanation that works for a less plausible one that cant be tested. Not. Science. When an explanation stops working we then continue the search.