|
Posted by spaceart on September 14, 2005, 5:11 am
Please log in for more thread options
Fifty years ago Martin Gardner published---in his classic book "Fads
and Fallacies in the Name of Science"---the characteristics of the
typical pseudoscientist. Prominent on this list was the need of the
pseudoscientist to compare himself with great, martyred,
"misunderstood" scientists of the past. This is a criteria that Eric
Crew manages to fulfil very well.
But, as always when he brings up the matter of Galileo, he forgets---or
chooses to ignore---the fact that Galileo was not castigated by his
fellow scientists. The men who took him to task for his discovery of
the satellites of Jupiter were philosophers and theologians.
Scientists, such as Kepler, embraced Galileo's findings . . . a fact
evident in Crew's own quotation.
Unfortunately for Crew, his ideas are not facing criticism from
theologians and laypeople but from scientists.
What he also chooses to forget is that Galileo did not merely toss a
half-baked idea into the arena and then stand back with a smirk on his
face . . . Like other scientists whose theories were initially met with
opposition---for instance, Wegener and his theory of continental
drift---Galileo had both a theory and the evidence to support it. What
Crew also chooses to forget are the thousands of theories that have
been put forward during the history of science that ultimately went
nowhere. They failed any number of the multitude of tests to which a
theory must be put. For instance, they may have failed experimentally,
or they may have had to have been discarded in the face of new,
contrary evidence.
There is absolutely no viable comparison between Galileo and Crew's
"theory" that the "face" on Mars may be an alien artifact. Perhaps
there may have been some faint justification for jumping to such a
conclusion thirty years ago, even though that conclusion was based on a
single extremely low-resolution image. But to cling to the idea in the
light of contemporary imagery of the "face" is little more than sheer,
megalomanical denial. Crew is incensed that scientists scoffed at the
artifact "theory" of the "face" when it was first presented, and maybe
with some small justification. But how does he justify clinging to a
theory that has been shown to be utterly erroneous? One may say that
there were two theories regarding the "face": one that it was an alien
artifact and one that it was a natural feature. Evidence has shown that
the former theory was wrong and the latter one right. This is how
science works.
Just as Crew's ideal "real scientist" waits for evidence and testing,
the real scientist is also just as willing to abandon a theory when the
results of that testing prove negative. This is something that Crew is
flatly unwilling to do. Indeed, his tactic is to continually demand
more and more evidence, rejecting out of hand all new evidence as being
insufficient and inadequate. This tactic can be continued indefinitely,
of course, which appears to be his intention. It is, of course,
absolutely antithetical to the way in which a genuine scientist
approaches any theory.
The blunt fact Crew refuses to face is that his dearly held idea that
artifacts exist on Mars simply does not hold water. When any of his
"evidence" has actually been put to the test, it has invariably failed.
When others have risen to his various challenges and responded with
mathematical and statistical analyses, he has rejected them without
explanation. When asked to respond to questions or critiques, he flatly
refuses to reply. He appears to sincerely believe that whatever he says
should be accepted without debate.
Eric Crew claims to be a scientist and rails at people who do not treat
him as one . . . yet he does not act in the way any responsible
scientist would. Certainly not in the way his scientific heroes---such
as Galileo---would have.
RM
Eric Crew wrote:
> The story of the discovery by Galileo of 4 of the moons of Jupiter is
> interesting and instructive in the light of some of recent astronomical
> comments in this website. The book 'Pioneers of Science' by Oliver Lodge
> (Macmillan 1928) - my school prize for mathematics and physics in 1934
> - describes this event in this memorable manner: 'The news of the
> discovery soon spread and excited the greatest interest and
> astonishment. Many of course refused to believe it. Some there were who
> having been shown them refused to believe their eyes, and asserted that
> although the telescope acted well enough for terrestrial objects, it was
> altogether false and illusory when applied to the heavens. Others took
> the safer ground of refusing to look through the glass. One of those who
> would not look at the satellites happened to die soon afterwards. "I
> hope," says Galileo, "that he saw them on his way to heaven." '.
> The tale then refers to this letter from Galileo to Kepler 'Oh my dear
> Kepler, how I wish that we could have one hearty laugh together! Here,
> at Padua, is the principal professor of philosophy whom I have
> repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and planets
> through my glass, which he pertinaciously refuses to do. Why are you not
> here? What shouts of laughter we should have at this glorious folly! And
> to hear the professor of philosophy at Pia labouring before the grand
> duke with logical arguments, as if with magical incantations, to charm
> the new planets out of the sky.'
> At that time the moons were sometimes described as new planets and it
> was generally thought that Jupiter and other planets were located on
> rotating crystal spherical shells so they could not have orbiting
> satellites.
> This indicates the attitude of many scientists today who did not accept
> the possibility that the "face" and other features on Mars may have been
> artefacts as soon as they were visible on Viking images, without waiting
> for further evidence because it rejected their firm belief that there
> could be no signs of former intelligent activity on other planets then
> Earth. So far, the further evidence is not conclusive.
> --
> Eric Crew
| 
XML Sitemap