--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Peter Horton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Dan M. wrote
>>I think that going to the moon and mars is an exciting idea, and >>has
>>great emotional value. But, from a scientific standpoint, I >>cannot see
>>much benefit in manned missions.
>
>
>Also, if you have not gone there and seen what there is to see, how >do you
>KNOW that there is no good scientific knowledge we can gain >from space
>exploration and colonization? Are you psychic? Gifted by the gods?
No, I'm a trained scientist. I guess it might be an appropriate place to
discuss open mindedness and science. In sci.physics, this has come up many
times when the physicists are accused by the "alternate thinkers" of not
being open minded. They suggest this experimental test or that experimental
test of relativity, or refutation of QM or something else. They took the
lack of interest in mounting a massive study of their idea as an example of
"close mindedness" and neo-orthadoxy in the scientific community.
The answer of Matt Meron and Jim Carr (and me to some extent) to those
claims is worth considering. Scientists cannot be universally open minded.
The numbers of potential experiments is close to infinite. One cannot do
them all. One has to make estimates of benefits of various experimental
proposals. One has to be reluctant to spend time testing every assumption
one makes in every experiment. If one doesn't do that, one gets caught up in
an infinite don't loop.
As our Zimmy has mentioned in another post, I was discussing manned space
exploration, not space exploration in general. Astrophysics has a great
potential for adding out our scientific knowledge. I think that some of the
best chances to find something fundamentally new and exciting are in the
area of astrophysics.
(BTW, IMHO it is likely that we will find more exciting advances in the
science of biology than in the sciences of physics and astrophysics in the
coming 50 years....but I think this are complex and not fundamental
sciences.)
High energy physics, on the other hand, seems to have reached the desert.
The promise of deep structure that seemed to be in the Zeus experiments at
DESY seems to not have been fulfilled when better statistics came in, alas.
Anyways, back to the main point. Given X amount for scientific research,
sending manned missions does not seem to be a good way to get bang for the
buck. The cost of manned missions is prohibitively high. It is very
unlikely that we will see something about the fundamental laws of physics on
Mars that we do not see on earth. Planetary science is worthwhile, and
should be done, but there is no significant evidence that a manned mission
would offer a significant enough advantage to outweigh the disadvantages.
So, in the real world of finite resources, one must make cost benefit
analysis for any proposed experiments. We know that we can send out scores
of unmanned missions for the cost of a single manned mission. We know that
the manned space program over the past 40 or so years has not contributed
significantly to our scientific understanding. Thus, I argue that
>
>It's like saying, "there's nothing to be gained from going there, >even
>though I've never been there." You don't know that. You >haven't been
>there.
No, its like saying that the cost benefit analysis says that there are many
other places that are higher on the priority list than there. Why don't we
set up the funding to send a manned mission to the mantle? We've never been
there, we don't know that there is nothing to be gained. But, we have a
very strong suspicion that the cost benefit ratio of such a mission is just
not worth it.
By the way, I don't mean to insist that, because I am a trained scientist,
that my opinions must be taken as holy writ. I don't want to cut off the
discussion on this topic simply because I've posted my opinion. My answer to
your questions for the source of my understanding is perfectly accurate. I
used my training as a physicist to analyze the value of spending scientific
research money on manned space travel instead of on other experiments.
However, I'm more than happy to read different analysis and to respond to
them. I'd also be interested in a thread of the value of open mindedness
and the need for having barriers to accepting new claims within science.
Dan M.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
