If one looks hard enough at anything with a skeptical mind ambiguity
will present itself in all it's subjective glory.
I understand about contamination with regard to meteorites falling, then
sitting for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years before their
discovery. I also admit that improper handling of specimens could
contaminate and void results as well. The only way to fix this apparent
problem of doubt is to reduce the amount of it by acquiring and
compiling more evidential data through proper sampling. Data that might
be considered absolutely irrefutable. Is there such a thing? Perhaps one
could argue the only way to prove it would be to send a probe to an
asteroid, recover samples in a sterile environment, with sterile
equipment, and preserve the sample through the entire journey back to
Earth, to a sterile lab where the piece could be examined. Even then,
doubt could still be cast, and it could be argued that contamination
could happen at any point during the entire process from manufacture
and assemblage of the probe, to launch, collection method, sample
return, processing, etc.
How do you cut out all of that doubt? Is it with a manned mission to the
surface of an asteroid? Whereby that astronaut/scientist would sample
and examine the asteroid "onsite" and report findings IF any evidence
was found. How long would that manned mission take to find evidence?
Perhaps forever if it doesn't exist.... But think of the knowledge that
could be learned during that time. I'm sure there are those that would
find fault with this method too. Humans are more fallible than machines.
I'm not arguing against doubt. I'm for it to an extent. But we should
temper doubt with logic. When does scientific evidence become accepted fact?
Eric
On 8/21/2010 3:20 PM, Darren Garrison wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 13:39:48 -0700, you wrote:
;) Patience... Historically there's a process of belief vs proof and
that helps hypothesis and theory to evolves into self evident fact.. At
first people are not receptive and it gets ignored, then they argue
against it, then it becomes plausible, and finally it becomes a viable
theory, which in turn becomes fact based on empirical evidence.
And, at times, the evidence is ambigious and questionable. ALH84001 is one of
those times.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/meteorites/alhnpap.html
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lpi/meteorites/alhnpapers_archive.html
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
______________________________________________
Visit the Archives at http://www.meteoritecentral.com/mailing-list-archives.html
Meteorite-list mailing list
[email protected]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
