[noisereductions]

David Bow--

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

in b4 Bowie.

... fuck you.

[EVOLghost]

 

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by Robert Schunk

SuchFriendsAreDangerous:

It's interesting that, in your last reply to me, you deleted the last part of my statement, and then supply a statement of your own which you then attribute to me.


I've put myself into a position where facts yet to be discovered may prove me wrong, and if so, then let it be so, because that's science. Sophistry is not science, and, so, is incapable of defeating even an incorrect scientific argument.

Excuse me but what are you talking about? You said what I quoted verbatim in reply #44, in fact I simply quoted it to demonstrate to !@#$%! what we were talking about. The other quote was from NASA's website agreeing with us both. Why are you calling me a fraud exactly? I even conceded that there very well might be radiation resistant microbial life, but then I countered to suggest such might be impossible because does an entirely radiation resistant ecology sound realistic?

Now that you've calmed down I'd like you take my last question serious, does it seem logical that there is an entire ecosystem on Mars which has evolved in an environment of dangerous radiation to be resistant? Or are you suggesting that perhaps if there are radiation resistant microorganisms that they are the last survivors of a previous Martian age? Even if we did, the deeper question I've been asking through out this thread is more about soul-searching than science, would all that really be worth it?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Its not dogma silly, its science like Bill Nye yo! What NASA is looking for on Mars is not necessarily evidence of existing life, but rather, evidence of previously existing life.

it's dogma in the sense that nobody knows what the fuck is there but you already declare the results of the experiment. science doesn't work that way. yes there is no magnetic field and there is no life "just like on earth" but if there is anything interesting it's worth exploring. but exploration and research are the opposite of prophecy. what's in that soil? we don't know until we know.

unlike r. schunk i don't read malice in your rhetoric but rather a religious bend-- call it "professional deformation" as we do in the romance languages-- here's teh english language equivalent i think: "if your only tool is a hammer every problem looks like a nail". you are aware of your own bias, right?

anyway, on the subject of priorities-- we already have the technology and produce enough food to feed everyone, and, the problem seems to be one of politics and social organization--- i doubt any scientist can fix a politician. but you have a point of sorts. "the war on hunger" is going worse than "the war on drugs"-- again a sociopolitical not scientific problem.

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Considering realities like Deinococcus radiodurans there may indeed be microscopic life on Mars,

I'm ready to accept victory now, for both myself and NASA.

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

there may indeed be microscopic life on Mars

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

life on Mars

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

life

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

on Mars

Exactly.

[floatingslowly]

despite the fact that we're now clear on one fact, please explain WHEN scientific breakthoughs were ever based upon what "sound realistic" to laymen?



...and then we can speak of your bias against micro-organisms as somehow being lesser than humanity. in stature, perhaps, but again, I find your view somewhat short-sighted.

is there such a thing as macrocists? like racists, but larger?

here in Panspermia, we are all brothers and sisters (as well as gender non-specific).


ONE LOVE, SEEN?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

I'm ready to accept victory now, for both myself and NASA.

Exactly.

 

meh.. we'll see. I still don't think its worth it

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

anyway, on the subject of priorities-i doubt any scientist can fix a politician. but you have a point of sorts. "the war on hunger" is going worse than "the war on drugs"-- again a sociopolitical not scientific problem.

Thank you. My only beef has always been one of priorities. America has always had a problem with priorities and values, we need to work in those directions. When we get our shit more or less together, perhaps then we can retool our focus on cool shit like Mars, but in the meantime, there is a lot of work to do. And yes, I bet analytical types like scientists would be WAY better than these sleazebag lawyers and business tycoons who masquerade themselves as politicians these days..

By the way its not my "religion" which somehow makes me "anti-science" because that is not the case, I am not against cool science, however my "religion" does push me towards humanistic values and priorities.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Thank you. My only beef has always been one of priorities. America has always had a problem with priorities and values, we need to work in those directions. When we get our shit more or less together, perhaps then we can retool our focus on cool shit like Mars, but in the meantime, there is a lot of work to do. And yes, I bet analytical types like scientists would be WAY better than these sleazebag lawyers and business tycoons who masquerade themselves as politicians these days..

By the way its not my "religion" which somehow makes me "anti-science" because that is not the case, I am not against cool science, however my "religion" does push me towards humanistic values and priorities.

it's not that you're "anti science," it's that head-in-the-sand humanistic values often fail to grasp a) the scientific method, b) the scientific underpinnings of reality. it's like when you were arguing that apple charges too much money without understanding how prices work in a market economy. you see a "wrong" and demand it be righted without looking at the objective reality behind it.

postmoderns and poststructuralists claim there is no objectivity, no nature, nothing, and they have a point to a degree that our view of the world is in great part socially constructed, but by tossing the scientific method of inquiry overboard the humanities tend to degenerate into meaningless propaganda that degrades the level of intellectual activity in every sphere.

this is an educational plague that creates a preponderance of rhetoric over research-- and the reason the humanities become more and more irrelevant as they strangle on their tongue (hey, i'm a humanities graduate, i can see how wrong some of this shit is).

you realize mathematics, geometry, astronomy and music (yes, music was considered a a branch of mathematics) used to be part of the "liberal arts" along with all the verbal nonsense back in antiquity? nowadays humanities people are at war with the sciences rather than embracing them as a part of "natural philosophy" as proto-science used to be called.

anyway, er, hm, i forgot where i was going with this, but, hm, "knowledge, good", okay? ha ha ha ha.

and no, i'm not for giving technocrats the reins of society. fuck no.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

it's not that you're "anti science," it's that head-in-the-sand humanistic values often fail to grasp a) the scientific method, b) the scientific underpinnings of reality. it's like when you were arguing that apple charges too much money without understanding how prices work in a market economy. you see a "wrong" and demand it be righted without looking at the objective reality behind it.

postmoderns and poststructuralists claim there is no objectivity, no nature, nothing, and they have a point to a degree that our view of the world is in great part socially constructed, but by tossing the scientific method of inquiry overboard the humanities tend to degenerate into meaningless propaganda that degrades the level of intellectual activity in every sphere.

this is an educational plague that creates a preponderance of rhetoric over research-- and the reason the humanities become more and more irrelevant as they strangle on their tongue (hey, i'm a humanities graduate, i can see how wrong some of this shit is).

you realize mathematics, geometry, astronomy and music (yes, music was considered a a branch of mathematics) used to be part of the "liberal arts" along with all the verbal nonsense back in antiquity? nowadays humanities people are at war with the sciences rather than embracing them as a part of "natural philosophy" as proto-science used to be called.

anyway, er, hm, i forgot where i was going with this, but, hm, "knowledge, good", okay? ha ha ha ha.

and no, i'm not for giving technocrats the reins of society. fuck no.

Dude who are you talking too? I said humanistic not humanities yo!

I am not anti-science, I am not against the scientific method, but I am against spending shitloads of monies on scientific curiosities. Let the Koch brothers and David Geffen spend their money that instead of tax-payers. Better yet, lets not spend the money at all until we get Earth in order, and hey, we can use some science for that while we're at it

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

Dude who are you talking too? I said humanistic not humanities yo!

I am not anti-science, I am not against the scientific method, but I am against spending shitloads of monies on scientific curiosities. Let the Koch brothers and David Geffen spend their money that instead of tax-payers. Better yet, lets not spend the money at all until we get Earth in order, and hey, we can use some science for that while we're at it

how do you know we can get earth "in order" and what does it mean? every time some naive fucker attempts to create a utopia with the very best of intentions, the result is a worse hell than the original. i don't mean to oversimplify this shit, but what if earth is better off with some healthy, messy, strength-inducing chaos?

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

how do you know we can get earth "in order" and what does it mean? every time some naive fucker attempts to create a utopia with the very best of intentions, the result is a worse hell than the original. i don't mean to oversimplify this shit, but what if earth is better off with some healthy, messy, strength-inducing chaos?

Not talking about utopianism, but being realistic doesn't equate to being nihilistic either


Chaos perhaps, but humans have the agency to effect change, either positive or negative, the question we all have to ask ourselves is which? Again, if Kock and Geffen and Bransen want to get together and spend the shitlaods of money they have from mercilessly low taxes to fund cool and geeky science explorations fine, but when the US govt has folks threatening to shut down WIC perhaps we have our values mixed up? Maybe we forget all that in our childlike fascination with the cool science stuff, but that stuff costs money, and in fact, its our money at that. We can get our own house in order while temporarily scaling down our visions for space, and come back to it later. We look foolish if you ask me, spending all this money on space exploration meanwhile Americans are dying of preventable diseases because of lack of healthcare. Oh wait, that is because our cultural values somehow support corporate welfare for geeky scientific projects, but alas, not to care for those very real human needs. Again, science is cool, but my issues is priorities. I am not anti-science, I am not even necessarily against this Mars shit, but private donors haven't been picking up the tab, in fact, they've been making the profits at our expense.

[!@#$%!]

also if you wanna work the dictionary --

your linked definition:

hu·man·is n.1. A believer in the principles of humanism.
2. One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.
3. a. A classical scholar.
b. A student of the liberal arts.
4. Humanist A Renaissance scholar devoted to Humanism.

takes us here---->>>>

hu·man·ism
n.1. A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
2. Concern with the interests, needs, and welfare of humans: "the newest flower on the vine of corporate humanism" (Savvy).
3. Medicine The concept that concern for human interests, values, and dignity is of the utmost importance to the care of the sick.
4. The study of the humanities; learning in the liberal arts.
5. Humanism A cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that emphasized secular concerns as a result of the rediscovery and study of the literature, art, and civilization of ancient Greece and Rome.

[!@#$%!]

ps- shutting down WIC would be fucked up, but as i said it's not a zero-sum game as the teabaggers will have you believe.

as for the argument of guns vs butter i'm for cutting down the military police force around the globe before cutting down NASA though.

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

Who else wants to discuss Alcubierre drives and the impact they'll have upon interstellar colonisation??

O, rly? Thanks, io9!

http://m.io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-wi...rst-warp-drive

[EVOLghost]

uhmm....YEah! Totally!

[chrome noise tape]

life on Mars?...sure

 

[dale_gribble]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

O, rly? Thanks, io9!

http://m.io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-wi...rst-warp-drive

very exciting!

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

NASA said Monday that its Mars rover Curiosity had analyzed a Martian sand drift, but — alas — had not found signs of the building blocks of life. At a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, scientists said the mineralogical composition was similar to what was found by the earlier Spirit and Opportunity rovers elsewhere on Mars. An instrument, Sample Analysis at Mars, or Sam for short, looked at the gases that escaped as it heated the dirt to nearly 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. The most common gases were water vapor and carbon dioxide.

The Sam instrument also detected chlorinated methane — a small, simple compound that falls in the category of organics, which are the building blocks of life. But the scientists said it was too early to say that the soil itself contained organics. The carbon could be vestiges of molecules that the spacecraft brought from Earth, and the organics could have been generated by chemical reactions as the dirt was heated. Whether the carbon could point to anything biological, “that’s well down the road for us to get to,” said John P. Grotzinger, the mission’s project scientist.

NY Times December 4, 2012

[floatingslowly]

These same samples detected water molecules bound to the dust, which was only scooped.from a shallow-depth, and more excitingly, the perchlorates detected can not only be converted to rocket fuel, but microbes on earth have been found that use it as their primary oxidizing agent of metabolism.

I think it's silly, and somewhat a sign of the hostile-to-science atmosphere that you espouse, to assume that carbon readings surely couldn't have been native to Mars, as they are found almost everywhere, including cometary bodies.

Did you see they found water-ice lurking at the bottom of craters on Mercury?

ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

True and real science is to (a) admit what is unknown and (b) have the BALLS to accept when theories and hypotheses happen to be wrong. The only way to learn NEW things, is to be open to the NEW, even when it disagrees with the current theories.

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

These same samples detected water molecules bound to the dust, which was only scooped.from a shallow-depth, and more excitingly, the perchlorates detected can not only be converted to rocket fuel, but microbes on earth have been found that use it as their primary oxidizing agent of metabolism.

I think it's silly, and somewhat a sign of the hostile-to-science atmosphere that you espouse, to assume that carbon readings surely couldn't have been native to Mars, as they are found almost everywhere, including cometary bodies.

Did you see they found water-ice lurking at the bottom of craters on Mercury?

ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS EXCEPT EUROPA. ATTEMPT NO LANDING THERE.

I think it is petty and bullshit and what is worse, *yawn* predictably boring for you to keep the false narrative running that I am anti-science. If anything, my skepticism on this issue is MORE science based than y'all not-based-on-fact-but-on-hypothesis pep rally

I am not anti-science, I am just trying to be clear on the limits of our current understandings about the Multiverse, including our nearest neighbors. Further, that article is just a recent update to the discussion, not some kind of dagger to the premise. If y'all dig deeper maybe y'all will find something, but at the moment, there is the same nothing we started with in the first place, lets just be clear about that. Kicking the FACTS is science, kicking the theories is science fiction, and there is a world of difference. Jules Verne was indeed a prophetic visionary, but lets be frank, you can't count all the chickens just before they hatch, and a bird in the basket is indeed better than three in the bush like my Southern grandparents always taught me