[pantodragon (OP)]

This is clearly an oversimplification of the idea of evolution by natural selection.  As I further went on to explain, competition does not lead to monoculture, and it is not the only driving force in evolution.  You seem to dismiss the idea of evolution, but only after simplifying it into absurdity.

The strange thing is that in my experience, and one can find most fortuitous reasons for this (such as necessity, such as life would not be possible else), the truth is amazingly simple and within the grasp of individual human beings – or I should say, and this is crucial, within the grasp of healthy individual human beings.  Where one finds complexity one finds lies, and where one finds lies, one finds competitiveness.  Also, where one finds competitiveness, one finds illness, and therefore competitiveness is its own worst enemy.

I am not dismissing the idea of evolution.  Complex systems, such as the human body, or the natural environment, must be self-regulating because the component parts cannot be disentangled, and their functions within the whole cannot be predicted.  Under those circumstances a complex being or system cannot be controlled, cannot be developed by conscious interference, and cannot be repaired by outside agents, but must be allowed to develop of its own accord,  and that is an evolutionary process, and must be self-regulating, self-repairing etc. – this is why the interference of scientists in the natural world and the human body is so iniquitous.

Where I might take issue with science is over its claims to know the history of the natural world on such scant evidence and making so many assumptions.  For example, you have absolutely no evidence to suggest that dinosaur bones were in the ground before they were discovered.  Even as a Christian (which I am not), I could offer an alternative: for reasons of his own, which I do not presume to know, being such a lesser being, God decided that it would be a good idea to plant these bones in the ground at the appropriate time.  The simple truth is that there is no way of choosing bewtween these two explanations for the existence of dinosaur bones – it just depends which religion you adhere to.

So here we get back again to the fact that science is just the latest big religion.  You only have to look at it from a detached, outside perspective to see that the other religions and science have the same features, which thus proclaims them to be of the same family. 

Science always offers that it is open to change, that on the basis of new evidence it will alter its theories – but the point is these have to be new scientific theories.  Science guards itself well: it clings to the supremacy, and the seeming reasonableness, of the scientific method.  Also, it ensures that nothing that is not orthodox science ever gets published or taken seriously by subjecting the work of all scientists to the Peer Review system.  The idea that science or scientists are open minded is ridiculous.  They even drive for converts, and to discredit competing religions.

I think it is also important that people should learn the truth of what goes on behind the closed doors of science, in the inner sanctums: it really is a very nasty world, a dog-eat-dog world, and the notion of that wonderful community of scientists all working together for the greater good is a travesty.  Scientists are concerned with one thing only and that is not truth, it is winning.  If any scientist is lucky enough to happen upon an alternative theory to those that are current, he or she will fight tooth and claw, and will seek allies, to get their theory accepted and their name in the science books.  As I said, truth has nothing to do with anything; its all about winning.

[pantodragon (OP)]

Perhaps you will take the time to address my question: Would you care to name a methodology which has been more effective, or even as effective, for acquiring knowledge about the world?

One might say that we live in the best of all possible worlds: in other words, science is no accident.  The scientific method and the world described by science, is the method and world that best suits people of the modern world.  The reason people need a ruley, predictable world is because they are sinking into autism.  For a healthy person the world of science is a prison in which they would languish and die.  As to a methodology which has been more effective, that is a matter for the individual.  That this should be so would take some explanation but it starts from throwing out the idea that existence is ruled by mathematics, is in fact ordered by laws and trying out the idea that existence is ruled by meaning, and that meaning is much more flexible and less predictable and, in fact, more human, than laws.  Actually, I suppose one would probably have to go the whole hog and try out the idea that we live in a virtual reality rather than a real, material world.

I say “try out” because that is how you should approach finding out the truth.  You have to allow it to come to you.  This is because you cannot control understanding, cannot drive it, cannot force it to grow, and this is fundamentally about understanding, not knowledge.  Also, understanding often requires new concepts, new perceptions, and these come from experiences, or from something someone says to you, but at any rate, you cannot know in advance how your perception needs to change and can only find out how it has changed after it has changed.

[pantodragon (OP)]

How has a technical discussion about life on Mars degenerated into fundamental Christian arguments about evolution?.

Please refer to my response today to BenV, but essentially it is because science is another religion and therefore optional theories offered by other religions are relevant to any scientific discussion.

[BenV]

Okay, that's enough philosophy, please can we return to the topic in hand?  We don't have a philosophy section of the forum, but I'm sure a new thread on the philosophy of science would fit in the General Science board, should you wish to start one.

[CliffordK]

Ben,
Thanks for pushing the topic back towards the original question.
One can, of course, look for parallels between Earth and Mars, or between Primordial Earth and Primordial Mars. 

Yes, with all the probes, flybys, and etc, we likely would have noticed if Elephants roamed the surface on Mars, or perhaps a Sequoia growing somewhere.  However, we might not be able to detect an eagle flying around Jupiter, as long as the species hasn't developed artificial satellites and radio transmission yet.

The Armstrong Limit (6,300 Pascals) is greater than the surface pressure on Mars (1,155 pascals in the depths of Hellas Planitia).  Thus, while a thick leather may be able to endure the low pressure, features such as terrestrial eyeballs, or mucous membranes could not.

Plants, however, may be able to endure lower pressures than animals.  If a water cycle existed, the low pressure might in fact help with water transport within the plant.

Anyway, I would agree that it is unlikely that we will suddenly find LIVING large macroscopic life on the surface of Mars.

Since Mars is volcanic (Olympus Mons), there likely is a depth where temperatures and pressures might allow the persistence of liquid water, and could potentially support life. 

Microscopic life forms would be most likely, but I don't think we have the data to rule out subterranean macroscopic life forms.

It is possible that life elsewhere would have different molecules than life on Earth, so probing for DNA nucleotides, or Amino Acids might not confirm or disprove life originating on Mars. 

[syhprum]

"It is possible that life elsewhere would have different molecules than life on Earth"

I think that with the relative closeness of Mars to Earth with the inevitable interchange of meteorites between the two I think it unlikely that a completely different form of molecular life would have evolved there I think that any life found there will be similar the Earth life at a molecular level.

[pantodragon (OP)]

Okay, that's enough philosophy, please can we return to the topic in hand?  We don't have a philosophy section of the forum, but I'm sure a new thread on the philosophy of science would fit in the General Science board, should you wish to start one.

First I would like to explain why you, or/and the researchers you refer to are over-complicating the issue of cooperative and competitive behaviour.  To start with, it is not the behaviour/strategy that is competitive or cooperative; it is the person or animal.  This means that it is not a matter of a person choosing to adopt a cooperative strategy to deal with one situation and a competitive strategy to deal with another, but rather, that if a person is cooperative then everything they do is cooperative and if a person is competitive then everything they do is competitive.  This means that it is not obvious to a detached observer what is competitive and what cooperative, for all acts, from murder to cuddling a baby can be either competitive or cooperative.  However, cooperation is win-win while competition is, in fact, lose-lose.  So  a competitive person is their own worst enemy.

The obvious question then is how does one distinguish between the two types of people, how does one tell whether one is dealing with cooperation or competition.  It is really very simple because we all have the human faculties that allow us to see and understand this sort of thing: suppose you spend an afternoon with someone, maybe a friend, and the conversation is all about your work or hobbies or interests, and this friend is very encouraging and you are getting enthusiastic and full of new ideas and so on, so that you think you will go home and get on with things and make some real headway etc.  Then you go home.  Suddenly you feel tired, drained, even depressed and you can’t think what happened to all that enthusiasm because now you feel you just can’t be bothered.  This is the sign that you friend is competitive.  If your friend was cooperative you would find that when you got home you felt full of fresh energy and enthusiasm.   That is how you tell the difference between competitive and cooperative people: the first drains you of energy and leaves you depressed, and the second fills you with energy and enthusiasm and the zest for life.

But to return to your latest comment: this sounds to me like a dismissal, the kind of retreat to a fall-back position that people use when they are defeated, when they are faced with an argument which they cannot answer.  It is so typical of scientists and their like that they refuse to deal with the issues that are fundamental and of crucial importance and retreat into nit-picking where they can get their challengers bogged down in detail.  It is a classic diversionary maneouver.  By bundling all the questions that you can’t answer, and which would derail science, as philosophy, you get away with murder,

When one considers what science expects of us, what it is imposing upon us, it is absolutely ridiculous that instead of answering these crucial questions, science practices the hard sell, the brainwashing advertising that has been developed by business.

I am not allowed to pick flowers in the country, increasingly there are places I cannot visit because science has claimed them for its own, my food is doctored, the water I drink is doctored, I am pressured to sort out my rubbish for recycling, to cut down my fuel consumption, my paper use, energy use, I am threatened with climate change, I am indoctrinated in scientific “knowledge” and practice from a very early age without due acknowledgement of other possibilities – in fact, science is taking over the world, is getting into every nook and cranny of people’s lives and controlling them, and yet its adherents refuse to explain themselves and the grounds upon which they feel they have the right to exercise such mind-boggling authority.

It seems to me utterly reprehensible that a site such as this should avoid answering the important questions.  By your silence you condone, and thus contribute your fair share to, the insidious brain-washing.  You may be causing untold harm, maybe destroying the environment by your efforts to control it, destroying people’s lives by your dictates, and yet you prefer to cling to your comfortable over-lordship than to give an honest account of yourselves.

So, no, this is not philosophy; this is going to the heart of science, asking the questions that need to be asked, and refusing to be dismissed, belittled or silenced. 

[BenV]

Hi Pantodragon,

I would like to respond to some of your comments, but will not do so in this thread about life on mars. So, I'm going to split this latest comment off into a new thread in the general science part of the forum.  What title would you like me to give it?

[pantodragon (OP)]

I would like to respond to some of your comments, but will not do so in this thread about life on mars. So, I'm going to split this latest comment off into a new thread in the general science part of the forum.  What title would you like me to give it?

Yes, I wish you would reply to some of my comments instead of playing at policemen.  You offer a good example of the competitive person that I talked about in my previous post with the result identified as characteristic of competitive behaviour: “Suddenly you feel tired, drained, even depressed and you can’t think what happened to all that enthusiasm because now you feel you just can’t be bothered.”    In other words, by your policing activities you have killed the discussion stone dead – that, of course, is what competitiveness is about: why bother to risk a proper discussion when you have tricks up your sleeve to drain the blood out of your opponents so that they just wilt and you end up winning the argument by default?

Another way of describing your behaviour is to identify you as a party pooper: you’re the person standing at the edge of a bunch of people who are having a good energetic conversation, which you cannot thole since you are not the centre of attention, and so you feel a great urge to take over and control, and so you interrupt in a loud voice with some superfluous point of order.  The result is that you make yourself the centre of attention but that your interruption breaks the flow of the conversation, diverts its energy, and causes the participants to forget what they were about to say and thus loose interest – party thoroughly pooped.

It really is time you went on to another forum where you are the newbie, and are not surrounded by sycophants who hang on every word and express admiration at every opportunity.  I say this for your own good.  You have no idea what harm you are doing yourself with this behaviour.  In the first place, you surround yourself with sycophants, not friends and that is really not a pleasant world to live in.  In the second place, too much competitiveness leads to autism. 

[BenV]

So what title would you like the new discussion thread to have?

Please allow me to explain why I don't want to discuss these topics here:  If people come to a science Q&A forum, such as this, and see a post entitled "Alien life on Mars?" they will expect to see a discussion of alien life on Mars.  If they then discover the most recent posts are all discussing the philosophy of science, they won't read much further back and will assume that the other threads are similar - i.e. they don't contain the answers they are looking for.  As I'm one of the people who run this forum, I'm very keen for it to do what we set it up to do - help people ask science questions and find scientific answers.

[JP]

Pantodragon, Ben has asked me to look over this thread as an impartial moderator. 

First, I'd like to request that you review the forum rules, located here: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0

Second, I am locking this thread since it has gone far from the original question about life on mars into both philosophy of science and ad hominem arguments.   As Ben said, this is a science Q&A forum.  We have some room for discussion of philosophy, but for the most part it is beyond the scope of what we are able to accommodate.  If you would like to engage in in-depth conversations on the philosophy of science, perhaps another forum would be a better fit for you.  Ad hominem arguments such as lecturing others on their psychological faults rather than discussing the science at hand, are not tolerated on the forum at all. 

If you would like to re-open a thread on the philosophy of science, you are welcome to do so, either in General Science (if you would like to discuss established ideas in science) or in New Theories (if you would like to propose new ideas), but please keep the forum rules in mind when you do so.

Thank you,
The Moderators