Gary, among the staunch Martian water advocates, you've made what I think is the best contribution to the debate so far. This contribution is the phrase "satisfactorily uncomfortable." That's got my vote for Oxymoron of the Month. And it's quite a bit funnier than Eugene Leitl's non sequitur, "Faith = absence of data."
>From what I can see, all we have is this: (1) there is solid evidence of water chemistry (2) there is persuasive evidence of liquid movement on the surface Where is the evidence that the water chemistry stems from the same liquid that moved on the surface, meaning that this liquid was certainly almost entirely water? For your sake, I interpret the following as a Freudian slip, but as a wry joke: > BTW, us scientists do solicit funding, but most try to not let the > facts get in the way. As for this: > you and others on this list (Eugen, Jim, et al.) have made it obvious > [liquid CO2] too much of a long shot. ... well, "too much of long shot" is everyday English for "neglibly probable." Certain pundits' rantings notwithstanding, probability is a measure of belief. "Frequentist" arguments are still fundamentally this Bayesian measure, since probability and statistics have been intelligently co-designed for agreement at the limit of statistical observation. Do we have enough data for a "frequentist" probability assessment about liquid CO2 flows on Mars? I haven't seen it. So we're back to probability as a measure of belief. And that takes us back to theory, still far from complete. >From dozens of casual observations, it's pretty easy to build a frequentist case for the intuitively obvious proposition "heavier things fall faster." Ancient Greek ballisticians (a smarter bunch than people realized until recently) must certainly have known that this wasn't true, but probably shrugged off the popular misconception, because their jobs were safe as long as there were imperious Romans, bloodthirsty pirates, and other Greeks willing to go to war with the ballisticians' city-states. Just as people in Columbus' time who knew better could shrug off the superstition that the earth was flat. Any ship's captain who made an issue of it wasn't going to get a good navigator, and that ship would be increasingly unlikely to make it back to port. Evolution in action. But we're dealing with evidence of water on Mars here, where it's extremely expensive and time-consuming to make even a handful of the required observations, and in a context whose political economy is a very different kettle of fish than the one from which Greek ballisticians and 15th century navigators ladled out such nourishing broth. Gary, can you tell me for sure that you know that there have been enough of the right kinds of observations to make an assessment of liquid CO2 flows on Mars as being *neglibly* probable? Until I see evidence of such observations, I would tend to go with (literal) weight of evidence: there is a huge amount of CO2 on Mars, but apart from the polar caps, the only evidence of water on other parts of the surface has been derived from subtle chemical experiments by probes that can cover only a small amount of that surface. -michael turner [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary McMurtry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 3:32 AM Subject: Re: Standing Body of Water Left Its Mark in Mars Rocks > > Michael, > > First, may I suggest a better question to bat about may be "if there > is now mounting evidence for abundant liquid water once on Mars, > where did it go and why?". I appreciate your pursuit of a competing > hypothesis for liquid CO2, because I think in trying to suggest it, > you and others on this list (Eugen, Jim, et al.) have made it obvious > it's too much of a long shot. > > BTW, us scientists do solicit funding, but most try to not let the > facts get in the way. Most of our funding awards are peer reviewed, > which although an imperfect and increasingly overtaxed process, still > functions to weed out the crud. As you probably know, unlike > religion, science is self-correcting and evolves through time. We > are satisfactorily uncomfortable with our present knowledge state. > > Gary > > >--- Michael Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > >> So I'm still holding out for a possible CO2 > >> sea/ocean/lake as an explanation > >> for features that we, on our water planet, associate > >> only with bodies of > >> water. That doesn't mean that there haven't *also* > >> been bodies of water on > >> Mars, just that it doesn't look like the case is > >> closed yet. Unless I've > >> missed something. > >> > >> -michael turner > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > >> > >> == > >> You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing > >> list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Project information and list (un)subscribe info: > >> http://klx.com/europa/ > >> > >As I understand it, the recent findings by the rovers > >indicate deposits of gypsum and salt, which dissolve > >in water, but not in supercritical CO2 > > > >===== > > > >Sincerely > > > > > > > >James McEnanly > > > > > >__________________________________ > >Do you Yahoo!? > >Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time. > >http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html > >== > >You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > > == > You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/ > > == You are subscribed to the Europa Icepick mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project information and list (un)subscribe info: http://klx.com/europa/
