No, Diatoms Have Not Been Found in a Meteorite(slate.com)
slate.com
No, Diatoms Have Not Been Found in a Meteorite
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_a_meteorite_claims_by_n_c_wickramasinghe_of_diatoms_in_a_meteorite.html#.UT8TU9xCmRM.hackernews
11 comments
I agree there is a rush but most times is from the media, not only from the actual gatherers of information (not in this case apparently).
I remember when CERN published the experiment that they measured neutrinos(?) that seem to travel faster than the speed of light, the news was:
Neutrinos travel faster that the speed of light, the rules of physics as we know them are collapsing.
CERN did nothing wrong, they published what they findings, and later, when peer reviewed, it proved to be a measurement error, that's the way science is supposed to work.
Similar was when NASA(?) found a bacteria that sustained life without carbon, that proved to be wrong too.
The problem is that it doesn't pay to be conservative, and absolutist headlines sell much better than realistic ones. I think it's a shared blame.
I would also like to add, to be fair, that many of this topics are pretty complicated for the layman, and some information is lost when the news is simplified/oversimplified. Not everyone is familiarized with the scientific processes, nor they are supposed to be.
I remember when CERN published the experiment that they measured neutrinos(?) that seem to travel faster than the speed of light, the news was:
Neutrinos travel faster that the speed of light, the rules of physics as we know them are collapsing.
CERN did nothing wrong, they published what they findings, and later, when peer reviewed, it proved to be a measurement error, that's the way science is supposed to work.
Similar was when NASA(?) found a bacteria that sustained life without carbon, that proved to be wrong too.
The problem is that it doesn't pay to be conservative, and absolutist headlines sell much better than realistic ones. I think it's a shared blame.
I would also like to add, to be fair, that many of this topics are pretty complicated for the layman, and some information is lost when the news is simplified/oversimplified. Not everyone is familiarized with the scientific processes, nor they are supposed to be.
I was about to say the same thing in that thread :)
How would fossilization occur in space? I was under the impression that water carried down calcium compounds which replaced bone structure/other molecular structures. Would not the fossil have to be there as the rock becomes ejecta from some source?
One possibility would be that if the calcium already existed in the asteroid along with ice.
The ejecta could somehow retain some water along with the original organisms the sudden relocation to space would preserve the structure (if it hadn't been vaporized first). The water would turn to ice.
If this asteroid then came near the Sun, the ice would presumably melt by the ambient heat (and if deep inside, wouldn't immediately sublimate). The moisture will then aid in the fossilization.
That's purely speculation, of course.
The ejecta could somehow retain some water along with the original organisms the sudden relocation to space would preserve the structure (if it hadn't been vaporized first). The water would turn to ice.
If this asteroid then came near the Sun, the ice would presumably melt by the ambient heat (and if deep inside, wouldn't immediately sublimate). The moisture will then aid in the fossilization.
That's purely speculation, of course.
I guess its possible...
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Universe_con...
Says there is 1.5 times more calcium than we thought before.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Universe_con...
Says there is 1.5 times more calcium than we thought before.
Fossilization of diatoms doesn't require calcium. Their cell walls are made of silica, which is preserved quite well by itself.
Though this is known from Earth diatoms, not space diatoms...
Though this is known from Earth diatoms, not space diatoms...
Assuming such organisms would exist, would we even be able to call them "space diatoms" when there is no established phylogeny? A Panspermia event would likely have seeded our planet with _bacterial_ life; if "space diatoms" exist, they evolved independently of our own.
I know there are countless cases of using names and nomenclatures when there is no relation (eg. water bear, sea horse, flying fox, etc.). But we shouldn't call such hypothetical organisms diatoms when they're unrelated. It's in poor form.
I know there are countless cases of using names and nomenclatures when there is no relation (eg. water bear, sea horse, flying fox, etc.). But we shouldn't call such hypothetical organisms diatoms when they're unrelated. It's in poor form.
That's what I assumed. Not that the fossilization actually occoured in space it's self.
Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/955/
I guess what confuses me with this stuff is that while we consider throwing out all claims of life on Mars due to a possible rover equipment exposure to non-sterile air, it's okay to assume that a meteorite laying around in the dirt is a safe source of extraterrestrial life.
The difference here, as I understand it, is that the measurements done on mars were done by looking for samples of specific carbon compounds. This is indeed vulnerable to contamination, since the compounds could be deposited on at any time.
In the case of diatoms, they were looking for fossilized structures embedded in the rock. These aren't subject to contamination (at least not trivially), because contamination would have to actually change the structure of the rock.
The results for both are wrong -- we didn't find life -- but in principle the methods of looking are subject to different kinds of errors.
In this case, the issue is that the author of the original paper has done two major things wrong:
In the case of diatoms, they were looking for fossilized structures embedded in the rock. These aren't subject to contamination (at least not trivially), because contamination would have to actually change the structure of the rock.
The results for both are wrong -- we didn't find life -- but in principle the methods of looking are subject to different kinds of errors.
In this case, the issue is that the author of the original paper has done two major things wrong:
- He hasn't shown that the meteor is actually a meteor.
- What he claims to be fossils embedded in the rock aren't fossils.That's the point - we don't think it's okay to assume that.
Okay, I'm no scientist but one part of the argument just kind of irks me:
[i]In other words, all the diatoms shown in the paper are from known species on Earth. That makes it somewhat less likely they are native to space. And by somewhat, I mean completely. Like, zero chance they are from space.[/i]
UNLESS, Panspermia is correct and all life on earth came from space, in which case it would be completely in the realm of possibility that life from space that landed on earth had already landed here before, in the distance past.
[i]In other words, all the diatoms shown in the paper are from known species on Earth. That makes it somewhat less likely they are native to space. And by somewhat, I mean completely. Like, zero chance they are from space.[/i]
UNLESS, Panspermia is correct and all life on earth came from space, in which case it would be completely in the realm of possibility that life from space that landed on earth had already landed here before, in the distance past.
No. You exhibit a severe misunderstanding of evolution.
Imagine panspermia is true. Some kind of life exists in space. and some of it fell down to earth. Then life on earth would evolve down here, adapting to the particular circumstances of our planet, and the species in space would evolve, separately, to adapt to living in space. The result is that both strands would inevitably become very different.
If you brought down life from space, compared it to actual life on earth, and found they turned out to be the same, then necessarily it would mean that both strands, in completely different environments, evolved to become the same. This is not only improbable, but emphatically impossible.
Imagine panspermia is true. Some kind of life exists in space. and some of it fell down to earth. Then life on earth would evolve down here, adapting to the particular circumstances of our planet, and the species in space would evolve, separately, to adapt to living in space. The result is that both strands would inevitably become very different.
If you brought down life from space, compared it to actual life on earth, and found they turned out to be the same, then necessarily it would mean that both strands, in completely different environments, evolved to become the same. This is not only improbable, but emphatically impossible.
You would have a point if they found living specimens in the meteorite. As it stands, they found organisms that have died a long time ago and that greatly resemble organisms that have died a long time ago. Dead things don't evolve, so placing their lives at the same chronological point is not a problem.
But according to the evolutionary biologist quoted in this article, neither the organisms in the photos nor the known species they look like have been dead a long time.
> "1) they are, for the most part, in great shape. There certainly is not any sign of this being fossilized material… There are no extinct taxa found, only ones we would find living today…"
> "1) they are, for the most part, in great shape. There certainly is not any sign of this being fossilized material… There are no extinct taxa found, only ones we would find living today…"
Fair enough. I was basing my comment on the other article, which claimed the opposite.
No...
Because even if life on earth came from a far far away galaxy (Millions of years ago) the way they would evolve would dependend on the environment and I bet earth is not 100% equal to any other planet on every single variable that also is close enough for a contamination to happen.
It would be ok to find one or two specimens that maybe "look" close to earth ones , but a whole bunch of them is somewhat impossible.
Because even if life on earth came from a far far away galaxy (Millions of years ago) the way they would evolve would dependend on the environment and I bet earth is not 100% equal to any other planet on every single variable that also is close enough for a contamination to happen.
It would be ok to find one or two specimens that maybe "look" close to earth ones , but a whole bunch of them is somewhat impossible.
That's true, makes sense. At first, I just felt like this guy was rebutting based on the common belief that life evolved on its own on earth. In the past I've seen evidence discounted and honest theories rejected simply because they contradict the norm, and what everyone is taught. I don't believe this is one of those situations now, but that's just how it felt to me at first.
>UNLESS, Panspermia is correct and all life on earth came from space, in which case it would be completely in the realm of possibility that life from space that landed on earth had already landed here before, in the distance past.
The earliest known life on earth is cyanobacteria from 3.5 billion years ago. The earliest diatoms we've found are from 185 million years ago, and they are believed to have arisen around 250 million years ago.
So even assuming that the earliest life on Earth included diatoms, that leaves over 3 billion years between the earliest specimens observed and these hypothetically original specimens. I don't think the odds are even worth considering that a species adapted for an extraterrestrial environment would be visually recognizable after 3 billion years of terrestrial evolution.
The earliest known life on earth is cyanobacteria from 3.5 billion years ago. The earliest diatoms we've found are from 185 million years ago, and they are believed to have arisen around 250 million years ago.
So even assuming that the earliest life on Earth included diatoms, that leaves over 3 billion years between the earliest specimens observed and these hypothetically original specimens. I don't think the odds are even worth considering that a species adapted for an extraterrestrial environment would be visually recognizable after 3 billion years of terrestrial evolution.
I don't think there is a lot of doubt that panspermia can work. There is nothing preventing it in principle, and the scenario becomes more probable the more we learn about extremophiles.
But, it's another thing to simply assert that life on Earth originated elsewhere. If anything, it's probably us who are spewing bio matter all over the solar system. There is simply no compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. We see all kinds of bio-like formations in space rocks, but they're always "fossilized" in a sense that they most likely arose from abiotic processes. This is not the first time dubious crystal formations have been declared as of biological origin.
We also discovered a lot of unexpectedly complex organic molecules floating around in outer space, so it's definitely possible to find familiar chemicals without a biosphere around to produce them.
It can be somewhat difficult to distinguish scientists who are expressing valid thoughts about panspermia from quacks who are pushing a philosophical agenda. In this case though there was not even a little bit of doubt that the data didn't agree with their conclusions.
But, it's another thing to simply assert that life on Earth originated elsewhere. If anything, it's probably us who are spewing bio matter all over the solar system. There is simply no compelling evidence to suggest otherwise. We see all kinds of bio-like formations in space rocks, but they're always "fossilized" in a sense that they most likely arose from abiotic processes. This is not the first time dubious crystal formations have been declared as of biological origin.
We also discovered a lot of unexpectedly complex organic molecules floating around in outer space, so it's definitely possible to find familiar chemicals without a biosphere around to produce them.
It can be somewhat difficult to distinguish scientists who are expressing valid thoughts about panspermia from quacks who are pushing a philosophical agenda. In this case though there was not even a little bit of doubt that the data didn't agree with their conclusions.
Except this wasn't even a space rock..
What I find worrying about this whole affair is that first everyone jumped on them saying that the fossils aren't really fossiles but instead just simple rock formations and then afterwords that the fossils are earth life so that the fossils didn't form outside of the earth.
Certainly the JoC is insane, but the jumping to conclusions it's critics engaged in seems worrying to me.
Certainly the JoC is insane, but the jumping to conclusions it's critics engaged in seems worrying to me.
EDIT "you" is generic, not you EthanHeilman!
When you have a rock and some things that look like fossils and you want to say that this is a space rock and these are space organisms then you have a responsibility to do all that kind of jumping to conclusions first, in order to rule each of them out. You should be attacking, as vigorously as possible, your theory because you know that's what other scientists are going to be doing and you can save them a bit of work if you show that you've tried to do this.
Otherwise you could actually have a space rock with space bugs but you'll be dismissed for longer because people don't have enough time and money to do your work for you.
When you have a rock and some things that look like fossils and you want to say that this is a space rock and these are space organisms then you have a responsibility to do all that kind of jumping to conclusions first, in order to rule each of them out. You should be attacking, as vigorously as possible, your theory because you know that's what other scientists are going to be doing and you can save them a bit of work if you show that you've tried to do this.
Otherwise you could actually have a space rock with space bugs but you'll be dismissed for longer because people don't have enough time and money to do your work for you.
Agreed, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim and clearly they did not carry this burden. Generally I don't worry about how crackpots do science because you know they are crackpots. I worry that the first response of the critics was a sadly uncritical rebuttal which turned out to be incorrect. Namely that the rock formations were not fossils and they the pictures were a 'Ink Blot' that someone was imagining fossils into. There really were fossiles. Lets do better next time.
It is correct to say that Perpetual Motion machines are impossible, but it is incorrect to say that Perpetual Motion machines are impossible because of the rotation direction of the earth.
It is correct to say that Perpetual Motion machines are impossible, but it is incorrect to say that Perpetual Motion machines are impossible because of the rotation direction of the earth.
Only if you assume that evolution hasn't affected earthbound diatoms in any way. That's a rather stronger assumption than "life comes from space".
They claimed there was no evolutionary differences, so either it started it's space journey at the same time our ancestor did, or it evolved in the exact same way...
However the stating of, "zero chance" is rather un scientific.
However the stating of, "zero chance" is rather un scientific.
>However the stating of, "zero chance" is rather un scientific.
Not really. It's just rounding. Of course nothing has literally zero chance, but sometimes the chances are so low that the epsilon isn't worth mentioning.
Not really. It's just rounding. Of course nothing has literally zero chance, but sometimes the chances are so low that the epsilon isn't worth mentioning.
He should have said "probability 0", which translates as "almost impossible". The word chance is the tricky one, here.
Well no, "probability 0" means "impossible". I'm not sure what difference you're seeing between "zero probability" and "zero chance", but they mean the same thing.
It's rather pedantic in this context, but "probability 0" and "impossible" actually aren't the same thing:
http://nolaymanleftbehind.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/the-diffe...
http://nolaymanleftbehind.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/the-diffe...
In mathematics, probability 0 means "almost impossible". Think about randomly choosing a number between [0,1]. Uh-oh, that set is actually infinite (cardinality aleph 1, technically). Suppose we consider only the numbers in it with 1 decimal digit, i.e. {0, 0.1, ... ,0.9,1}. Every one of them has 1/10 of probability of being chosen. Now, suppose we consider two decimal digits: 1/100 probability of being chosen.
Repeat this process and consider no discretization (i.e. there exists arbitrarily small epsilon>0 such that the difference between two numbers in the set is < epsilon).
Then the probability is.. 0! (you see how we divide 1 by the number of elements which are in the set)
But in the end you are going to pick one number or another in that set, so it is not "impossible". Surprise surprise.
Then the probability is.. 0! (you see how we divide 1 by the number of elements which are in the set)
But in the end you are going to pick one number or another in that set, so it is not "impossible". Surprise surprise.
Yes, perhaps a just a poor choice of words.
But it's not just Earth-like life, it's known species. That's a totally different thing.
Imagine if a car was found in a meteorite. It looks sort of like Earth cars. One explanation is that it actually came from Earth. Another explanation would be that it really is from space, but it looks like Earth cars either due to convergent design, or a sharing of ideas in the past.
Now imagine if another car was found in a meteorite. But not just a car that looks like an Earth car. It is, in fact, a 2009 Toyota Prius. This obviously did not come from space. No amount of convergent design or sharing of ideas can explain that.
Imagine if a car was found in a meteorite. It looks sort of like Earth cars. One explanation is that it actually came from Earth. Another explanation would be that it really is from space, but it looks like Earth cars either due to convergent design, or a sharing of ideas in the past.
Now imagine if another car was found in a meteorite. But not just a car that looks like an Earth car. It is, in fact, a 2009 Toyota Prius. This obviously did not come from space. No amount of convergent design or sharing of ideas can explain that.
[deleted]
If you're interested in the topic of ET life, I'd recommend Paul Davies book "The Eerie Silence: Renewing Our Search for Alien Intelligence".
Pretty sure this is N. C. Wickramasinghe: http://i.imgur.com/FpqQTu6.jpg
You're joking, but it's distracting. The real guy is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra_Wickramasinghe
"On May 24, 2003 The Lancet published a letter from Wickramasinghe,[16] jointly signed by Milton Wainwright and Jayant Narlikar, in which they hypothesized that the virus that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) could be extraterrestrial in origin and not originated from chickens. The Lancet subsequently published three responses to this letter, showing that the hypothesis was not evidence-based, and casting doubts on the quality of the experiments referenced by Wickramasinghe in his letter.[17][18][19]"
"On May 24, 2003 The Lancet published a letter from Wickramasinghe,[16] jointly signed by Milton Wainwright and Jayant Narlikar, in which they hypothesized that the virus that causes Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) could be extraterrestrial in origin and not originated from chickens. The Lancet subsequently published three responses to this letter, showing that the hypothesis was not evidence-based, and casting doubts on the quality of the experiments referenced by Wickramasinghe in his letter.[17][18][19]"
If fossilization occurred in the asteroid, wouldn't entering earth's atmosphere alter it sufficiently to be unrecognizable?
Also, who is to say that bacteria didn't "seep into" the asteroid? Scientists often use fossils to come to the conclusion that Antarctica wasn't that cold in the past: http://www.livescience.com/5023-fossil-suggests-antarctica-w...
Also, who is to say that bacteria didn't "seep into" the asteroid? Scientists often use fossils to come to the conclusion that Antarctica wasn't that cold in the past: http://www.livescience.com/5023-fossil-suggests-antarctica-w...
Rocks insulate fairly well, so the interior would probably be unscathed after reentry. Fresh meteorites tend to be extremely cold, because only the outer layers heated up in reentry, and the inside is still cold from being in space for a couple billion years.
Science -- The greatest religion of them all.
This is full of ad hominem, rough guesses, non scientific hyperbole, ones persons opinion (the authors, or a person contacted) and colloquialisms and weasel words. Please don't assume I believe in panspermia. But this article is likely to be just as rubbish as the original paper. The emotional language the author uses makes me think that this gripe is personal. As in biased. The opposite bias he accuses the original author of. And he keeps, well, saying, why, well...
Some examples of the hyperbole:
"It’s wrong. Really, really wrong. Way, way, way ridiculously oh-holy-wow-how-could-anyone-publish-this wrong."
"[deep breath]"
Cynically calling the journal "august"
"alarm bells exploded in my head"
"not without some merits." (not 'has some merits' but is just short of no merit at all. as in just 'some')
"fervent proponent"
"Like, really fervent" (did he actually, like, well, write 'like'?)
And so on it goes. And on, and on, and on. Like verbal diarrhoea. It really does come across like he has an axe to grind. This kind of writing really doesn't help his point. Do you think this article would pass peer review and be published in a journal?
I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
Some examples of the hyperbole:
"It’s wrong. Really, really wrong. Way, way, way ridiculously oh-holy-wow-how-could-anyone-publish-this wrong."
"[deep breath]"
Cynically calling the journal "august"
"alarm bells exploded in my head"
"not without some merits." (not 'has some merits' but is just short of no merit at all. as in just 'some')
"fervent proponent"
"Like, really fervent" (did he actually, like, well, write 'like'?)
And so on it goes. And on, and on, and on. Like verbal diarrhoea. It really does come across like he has an axe to grind. This kind of writing really doesn't help his point. Do you think this article would pass peer review and be published in a journal?
I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
I agree with most of your post. I prefer calmer writing, even when they're destroying stupid claims. I often find calmer writing to be more powerful. Someone yelling "HEY LOOK! THIS IS STUPID!!!" is less effective than just telling me that something is wrong, why it's wrong, and giving me links to real scientists who show it's wrong.
But I strongly disagree with your last paragraph.
> I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind.
This little sentence is evil, and I don't say that lightly. Creationism is taught in school science lessons alongside evolution because "we need to teach both sides", we need to 'keep an open mind' - even though evolution is a very strong theory and creationism is bollocks. There are many other similar examples of truth being harmed in the name of 'open mindedness'.
But it's important to realise that scientists do keep an open mind. Any belief will change if the evidence is strong enough. For some things we have some math to predict something and some weak experimental research showing it - for those things you'd just need better math and better experimental evidence and a nice description of how it fits in with everything else.
> Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
You're right, no-one really knows. But that's an excellent reason to be very very cautious when making claims. Start small and build the case, don't just announce that extra-terrestrial life has been found.
But I strongly disagree with your last paragraph.
> I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind.
This little sentence is evil, and I don't say that lightly. Creationism is taught in school science lessons alongside evolution because "we need to teach both sides", we need to 'keep an open mind' - even though evolution is a very strong theory and creationism is bollocks. There are many other similar examples of truth being harmed in the name of 'open mindedness'.
But it's important to realise that scientists do keep an open mind. Any belief will change if the evidence is strong enough. For some things we have some math to predict something and some weak experimental research showing it - for those things you'd just need better math and better experimental evidence and a nice description of how it fits in with everything else.
> Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
You're right, no-one really knows. But that's an excellent reason to be very very cautious when making claims. Start small and build the case, don't just announce that extra-terrestrial life has been found.
I can see your point. I didn't really consider this because I come from a country where creationism isn't, and wouldn't ever be taught in a science class. I guess I am a little cynical because I work in a science research lab (as a technician) and a few of the scientists are close minded, beginning with their conclusion and tailoring things to fit. These ones are very political and most concerned with putting their names on other peoples work.
Though that being said, most of them are open minded and thoughtful people. One of them is just amazing and has become my hero as I've watched them continuously fight the good fight against a toxic system that is against them most of the way.
I agree with your last sentence. The original paper should not have made such grand claims. When I read the first 'viral' reporting I actually went 'meh' and kind of dismissed it. It was, after all, just one paper, and no doubt we'd see a lot more over time if it were true. After all, rocks are falling from space all the time. But then this response, and more so, peoples defence of this writing, that really got my goat up.
It really reminds me of Tim Harford's TED talk on God Complex. I see this complex all around me, while the people displaying it deny it.
Though that being said, most of them are open minded and thoughtful people. One of them is just amazing and has become my hero as I've watched them continuously fight the good fight against a toxic system that is against them most of the way.
I agree with your last sentence. The original paper should not have made such grand claims. When I read the first 'viral' reporting I actually went 'meh' and kind of dismissed it. It was, after all, just one paper, and no doubt we'd see a lot more over time if it were true. After all, rocks are falling from space all the time. But then this response, and more so, peoples defence of this writing, that really got my goat up.
It really reminds me of Tim Harford's TED talk on God Complex. I see this complex all around me, while the people displaying it deny it.
There are some ad hominem attacks, which the author acknowledges by the way. Doesn't mean it's right, but at least he recognizes his possible bias.
Putting that aside, he does provide arguments against the article, which you chose to totally ignore. If you want to refute his point of vue, please do discuss the actual arguments.
Now, concerning some of your remarks:
> Do you think this article would pass peer review and be published in a journal?
That's why it was published in slate and not a peer reviewed journal. And that's to the author's credit: if a paper was published every time a crackpotery was exposed, there would be too much noise in scientific journals.
> I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind.
I don't see how refuting a paper using sensible arguments is showing a lack of open mind. What do you suggest? That we all happily accept every piece of crackpotery to show that we have an open mind?
> Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
Well the point of the JOC article was to show that there are diatoms in meteorites. The point of the slate article is to show that the JOC article is of dubious quality, and does not prove what it claims. Let me say it again: the slate paper does NOT say that there aren't diatoms in meteorites, it just says that this has not been proved.
Putting that aside, he does provide arguments against the article, which you chose to totally ignore. If you want to refute his point of vue, please do discuss the actual arguments.
Now, concerning some of your remarks:
> Do you think this article would pass peer review and be published in a journal?
That's why it was published in slate and not a peer reviewed journal. And that's to the author's credit: if a paper was published every time a crackpotery was exposed, there would be too much noise in scientific journals.
> I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind.
I don't see how refuting a paper using sensible arguments is showing a lack of open mind. What do you suggest? That we all happily accept every piece of crackpotery to show that we have an open mind?
> Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
Well the point of the JOC article was to show that there are diatoms in meteorites. The point of the slate article is to show that the JOC article is of dubious quality, and does not prove what it claims. Let me say it again: the slate paper does NOT say that there aren't diatoms in meteorites, it just says that this has not been proved.
> If you want to refute his point of vue [sic], please do discuss the actual arguments.
Maybe you could summarise them for me. Once all the needless vitriol is removed it couldn't be more than a few lines. I just can't trawl through them without gagging.
Maybe you could summarise them for me. Once all the needless vitriol is removed it couldn't be more than a few lines. I just can't trawl through them without gagging.
What about this piece compels you so much that you require others to do your reading comprehension for you? Just move along to something else.
I'm not compelled. That was a cynical comment intended to make the point that once all the extra verbosity was removed you could probably fit his points in a very succinct and easy to read article.
It's a blog post, not a scientific paper, so you best get over the informality. Debunking bad science is a thing that Phil Plait does, so if it sounds like he has an axe to grind, that's why.
>I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
That's called argument from ignorance. It's a fallacy.
>I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
That's called argument from ignorance. It's a fallacy.
Well then he really needs to clean up his writing style. I think his writing is terrible. If he wants to persuade people to be sceptical of the original paper he'll have a lot more success if he tones down the colloquial attacks. It's just way over the top.
Unless it's just preaching to the converted.
Unless it's just preaching to the converted.
I disagree. I think his writing is light and funny while taking on the important business of debunking crackpots. A serious-minded article would only give the ridiculous Journal of Cosmology credibility.
>I think his writing is terrible.
OK, that's fine, but he's one of the most popular science bloggers out there, so I doubt he's going to change it.
OK, that's fine, but he's one of the most popular science bloggers out there, so I doubt he's going to change it.
Dan Brown is one of the most popular writers on Earth.
Yes, so what we can certainly say for Dan Brown, if nothing else (and really, there is nothing else), is that his writing style is accessible.
> he'll have a lot more success if he tones down the colloquial attacks
That you, personally, do not enjoy his writing style implies almost nothing about the preferences of rest of the English-reading humans on this planet.
That you, personally, do not enjoy his writing style implies almost nothing about the preferences of rest of the English-reading humans on this planet.
Please don’t use fallacies in that way. They are not automatic game overs and can be part of reasonable arguments.
Yes, a warning light should go on in your head when someone uses a fallacy – but they can be very useful shortcuts – and if not presented in isolation, i.e. without any further argument, they are usually not so problematic (and discussions shouldn’t then be derailed by only focusing only on fallacies).
When scientists decide how to filter which information to take in they usually always rely – as a first step – on arguments from authority or (if you reverse it) ad-hominems. There is no time to check everything based on its merits. Journals exist to increase efficiency, as a first-defense shit filter.
Considering the repute of a journal and the editors involved as a first step makes total sense. Phil Plait is not a biologist. If he wouldn’t write for Slate about stuff like this, he probably would have seen the name of the journal, recognized it as extremely problematic and dismissed the research as most likely bullshit. And that’s that. It’s a perfectly valid approach.
So much crap is published every day, there just isn’t enough time to consider everything based on its merits.
Even though there really isn’t much of a need in this case, Phil Plait doesn’t stop there and pushes further, presenting some very solid arguments for why this research is bullshit, going even so far as to directly consulting experts in the field. If that’s not thorough (for a non-scientific publication, you know, a blog post) I don’t know what is.
Yeah, Phil Plait has a writing style that isn’t for everyone (I’m personally not a huge fan, but I still like him), but really, you are putting style over substance there.
All the while you drone on about ad-hominems, only to launch a huge one yourself. You completely ignore his arguments in favor of the writing style.
Conclusion: This research is bullshit. Plus, if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out (says Tim Minchin). And Phil Plait has an axe to grind. With bad science. And that it’s bad is something he quite elegantly demonstrates. There is no need to stay perfectly neutral in tone when you discuss obviously bad science.
Yes, a warning light should go on in your head when someone uses a fallacy – but they can be very useful shortcuts – and if not presented in isolation, i.e. without any further argument, they are usually not so problematic (and discussions shouldn’t then be derailed by only focusing only on fallacies).
When scientists decide how to filter which information to take in they usually always rely – as a first step – on arguments from authority or (if you reverse it) ad-hominems. There is no time to check everything based on its merits. Journals exist to increase efficiency, as a first-defense shit filter.
Considering the repute of a journal and the editors involved as a first step makes total sense. Phil Plait is not a biologist. If he wouldn’t write for Slate about stuff like this, he probably would have seen the name of the journal, recognized it as extremely problematic and dismissed the research as most likely bullshit. And that’s that. It’s a perfectly valid approach.
So much crap is published every day, there just isn’t enough time to consider everything based on its merits.
Even though there really isn’t much of a need in this case, Phil Plait doesn’t stop there and pushes further, presenting some very solid arguments for why this research is bullshit, going even so far as to directly consulting experts in the field. If that’s not thorough (for a non-scientific publication, you know, a blog post) I don’t know what is.
Yeah, Phil Plait has a writing style that isn’t for everyone (I’m personally not a huge fan, but I still like him), but really, you are putting style over substance there.
All the while you drone on about ad-hominems, only to launch a huge one yourself. You completely ignore his arguments in favor of the writing style.
Conclusion: This research is bullshit. Plus, if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out (says Tim Minchin). And Phil Plait has an axe to grind. With bad science. And that it’s bad is something he quite elegantly demonstrates. There is no need to stay perfectly neutral in tone when you discuss obviously bad science.
If you weren't so busy being indignant on behalf of a total crackpot, you might have noticed this:
"Wickramasinghe is a proponent of the idea of panspermia: the notion that life originated in space and was brought to Earth via meteorites. It’s an interesting idea and not without some merits."
The article author does not write off panspermia. It is not panspermia that is the issue. His issue with Wickramasinghe is not his support for panspermia, but that he makes claims that pretty much anything and everything is evidence of panspermia, even when it plainly isn't.
He addresses specific issues that raises very substantial doubts about the validity of this specific "research", and further points out that this quality is part for the course for both the journal it was published in and the researchers.
He acknowledges his ad hominem, but also points out that when we want to evaluate whether or not to believe in a claim, whether or not the source is reputable is in fact important unless we have the skill and inclination to accurately assess the claims made ourselves.
It is reasonable to be extra sceptical of claims made by someone with a history of making claims that turns out to be totally ridiculous and false, in the interest of not wasting time on every crackpot claim out there.
If this was a journal article, this would not have been acceptable - if we take the trouble of formally assessing the claims made, then we should do just that and leave the ad hominems out.
But this was not a journal article. And for good reason: Not many who would be likely to read the journal articles and have the skill to assess the claim would take these claims seriously in the first place. But a lot of people will have seen the news reports repeating the dubious claims made.
Frankly, your comment comes across like someone who has an axe to grind.
> I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
You're probably right. And the article writer seems to mostly agree with you on this:
> Having said that, I do think there is life in space, or at least that’s the way to bet. We know there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and we know life on Earth arose almost as soon as conditions on our newly-formed planet were right for it. So I’m confident that, statistically speaking, there is life on other planets, at the very least “primitive” life such as one-celled plants. > > It’s even possible life arose on Mars before it did on Earth and was carried here via meteorite. It’s an interesting idea. But it’s one with a lot of holes in it, the biggest being we have zero evidence of life on Mars. Getting it here is not that big a problem, but then having it live long and prosper is another issue altogether. > > So to me, panspermia is an interesting idea but has no evidence to support it. There are a host of other problems with it as well, but I think the biggest black eye it has right now is the support it gets from both pseudoscience and sloppy science.
He is skeptical, but does not rule it out. He does, however, rule out the specific claims made by Wickramasinghe in this instance based on actually evaluating the evidence presented.
"Wickramasinghe is a proponent of the idea of panspermia: the notion that life originated in space and was brought to Earth via meteorites. It’s an interesting idea and not without some merits."
The article author does not write off panspermia. It is not panspermia that is the issue. His issue with Wickramasinghe is not his support for panspermia, but that he makes claims that pretty much anything and everything is evidence of panspermia, even when it plainly isn't.
He addresses specific issues that raises very substantial doubts about the validity of this specific "research", and further points out that this quality is part for the course for both the journal it was published in and the researchers.
He acknowledges his ad hominem, but also points out that when we want to evaluate whether or not to believe in a claim, whether or not the source is reputable is in fact important unless we have the skill and inclination to accurately assess the claims made ourselves.
It is reasonable to be extra sceptical of claims made by someone with a history of making claims that turns out to be totally ridiculous and false, in the interest of not wasting time on every crackpot claim out there.
If this was a journal article, this would not have been acceptable - if we take the trouble of formally assessing the claims made, then we should do just that and leave the ad hominems out.
But this was not a journal article. And for good reason: Not many who would be likely to read the journal articles and have the skill to assess the claim would take these claims seriously in the first place. But a lot of people will have seen the news reports repeating the dubious claims made.
Frankly, your comment comes across like someone who has an axe to grind.
> I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
You're probably right. And the article writer seems to mostly agree with you on this:
> Having said that, I do think there is life in space, or at least that’s the way to bet. We know there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and we know life on Earth arose almost as soon as conditions on our newly-formed planet were right for it. So I’m confident that, statistically speaking, there is life on other planets, at the very least “primitive” life such as one-celled plants. > > It’s even possible life arose on Mars before it did on Earth and was carried here via meteorite. It’s an interesting idea. But it’s one with a lot of holes in it, the biggest being we have zero evidence of life on Mars. Getting it here is not that big a problem, but then having it live long and prosper is another issue altogether. > > So to me, panspermia is an interesting idea but has no evidence to support it. There are a host of other problems with it as well, but I think the biggest black eye it has right now is the support it gets from both pseudoscience and sloppy science.
He is skeptical, but does not rule it out. He does, however, rule out the specific claims made by Wickramasinghe in this instance based on actually evaluating the evidence presented.
Actually, you are wrong. He does write off panspermia. This is the problem with such a badly written article. It's so hard to filter away the nonsense and get to the meat of the article.
"panspermia is an interesting idea but has no evidence to support it."
That's a pretty clear write-off.
But none of this is my point.
"panspermia is an interesting idea but has no evidence to support it."
That's a pretty clear write-off.
But none of this is my point.
> Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?
There's not a 'maybe'. If you weren't so concerned with the tone of the article and being offended by his personality you'd actually see the meat of the criticisms he makes.
These 'papers' would not make it to peer review. Period. The characterization sucks, the samples suck, the analysis sucks.
The way to find extraterrestrial diatoms is not wandering around a warm, moist country poking at dirty rocks. You will find life then, but nothing that should be shocking to anybody but Robert Hooke.
There's not a 'maybe'. If you weren't so concerned with the tone of the article and being offended by his personality you'd actually see the meat of the criticisms he makes.
These 'papers' would not make it to peer review. Period. The characterization sucks, the samples suck, the analysis sucks.
The way to find extraterrestrial diatoms is not wandering around a warm, moist country poking at dirty rocks. You will find life then, but nothing that should be shocking to anybody but Robert Hooke.
I'm not offended. He's offended. I have no idea about panspermia. But I know his writing is aweful.
So style > substance?
"Open-mindedness" does not mean giving undue respect to every dumbass idea that crosses your desk. I think it's actually productive to shame ridiculous ideas in order to encourage skepticism.
Also the notion that a blog post should be written in the same style as a scientific journal article is obtuse.
EDIT: removed an extra "not"
Also the notion that a blog post should be written in the same style as a scientific journal article is obtuse.
EDIT: removed an extra "not"
While reading it I got a distinct sense he's paid by the word.
Maybe we have found the evidence, maybe we haven't!
"personal" != "biased"
Seems like there's a rush to get news out without full investigations.