The implications of finding absolute proof.

Proof versus evidence.

***

Evidence is fairly easy to find. For almost anything. <b>Too easy, in fact</b>. This is part of why we wrongly incarcerate so many 'murderers' and other 'bad guys' each year. Recently we have started correcting some of these miscarriages of justice. Of course, there will be mistakes in THAT direction as well ... sigh.

(Also, look at that crazy Website "MetaResearch.org" to get an idea of what I mean.)

Proof, on the other hand, requires the accumulation of a substantial pile of evidence - but even that is never perfect. If you have discarded some of the evidence (perhaps because it doesn't point in the right direction?) you are cheating. (Prosecutors know what I mean.)

Rather than discard it, live with it. Yes, this means sometimes you lose. Like I said ... live with it.

In the mountains right now for a short break, will get to this over the weekend.

Cheers

Malcolm Scott

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Malcolm,

I'm sure you are used to being personally razzed at many other sites for merely suggesting artificiality on Mars. We don't do that here. (Remember our Prime Directive - you can attack the message, but not the messenger?)

LB
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm sure you are used to being personally razzed at many other sites for merely suggesting artificiality on Mars. We don't do that here. (Remember our Prime Directive - you can attack the message, but not the messenger?)


LB
[/quote]

No not at all, I am not an active member of any other site.

In my schooling, we were quite involved in debates and English schools have quite the guidelines to ensure the process. So with respect to the prime directive, I will never attack the messenger, that would not do. However, I will challenge the message AS WELL AS any way the message is proposed should the attempted delivery be counterproductive or un-scientific. But this not be misconstrued as attacking the messenger.

Please see example f my response to Rich's reply.


Malcolm Scott

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>

1. I don't see any.
2. Perhaps. That was the point of my questions. This could be perfectly natural to the right person (who knows something about geology in general, and Mars Stratigraphy in particular).
3. Who knows? Maybe, but maybe not, for the same reason I gave you in (2). I don't know enough about the strata.
4. My guess would be it's part of the natural strata.
5. Maybe, but that's one huge leap.
6. In and of itself, I would say no. It doesn't prove anything. As a matter of fact, I don't think we're rising to the level of "proof" vs. "not proof". It just is. Whatever it is.

rd
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Response to 1 though 4. I have shown this image to quite a few people now and it is interesting to see the responses. In each case, they all concluded that they see some form of a design. Some mentioned that it had a natural sense to it while most saw the artifact as a statement and commented that they could see several facial designs at the very top. Interestingly, the comment was made on a couple of instances that they could see a face or head within a face of head and that o the backside of the facing head, could be seen another face looking reward. Each of the people who reviewed the image are professionals and two were very much involved in a profession that involved geology. Neither saw any correlation to anything geological especially in the anaglyph where the artifact is seen quite clearly as being dethatched from surface concluding that the artifact is sitting in the place as if by purpose.
Thus far, you are the only person who has commented that they see no aspect of design in this artifact.
Response to 5.
If this image had been acquired from the surface of Europa or even Titan, where extreme conditions to life can be found, your comment would make some sense. However, the artifact was found on Mars. This planet as you know has roughly the same land mass as the landmass on Earth and we have only photographed less than 1/10th of 1% of the surface. In addition, the surface is solid and rocky, somewhat similar to Earth. At midday, the temperature can climb to a balmy 60%. The current model holds there is a faint atmosphere which, in my opinion I must add, needs to be absolutely confirmed due to the apparent observation of a consistent blue sky suggesting a thicker more nitrogen based atmosphere.

It does appear to me that by all accounts it would NOT be a huge leap as you put it to hypothesize that this artifact could indeed be the remains of a once living organism which could very easily have evolved there.
So to say; a huge leap is somewhat inflammatory.


Malcolm Scott

Malcolm this just took a slight turn to the surreal. I almost don't know where to begin. But I'm going to give it a try, and I'm going to ask you to address each of my points below.

Start with this "Quote 1":


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Quote 1" - Thus far, you are the only person who has commented that they see no aspect of design in this artifact. <b>Malcolm </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Response to Quote 1: I never said that. In your list of questions,

Ques 2: "2. Does it have any natural design to it?" - Malcolm

Ans: 2. Perhaps. That was the point of my questions. This could be perfectly natural to the right person (who knows something about geology in general, and Mars Stratigraphy in particular). - rd

"Quote 2":

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Quote 2" - If this image had been acquired from the surface of Europa or even Titan, where extreme conditions to life can be found, your comment would make some sense. However, the artifact was found on Mars. This planet as you know has roughly the same land mass as the landmass on Earth and we have only photographed less than 1/10th of 1% of the surface. In addition, the surface is solid and rocky, somewhat similar to Earth. At midday, the temperature can climb to a balmy 60%. The current model holds there is a faint atmosphere which, in my opinion I must add, needs to be absolutely confirmed due to the apparent observation of a consistent blue sky suggesting a thicker more nitrogen based atmosphere. <b>Malcolm </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Response to Quote 2: If this image had been acquired on Earth (in your backyard even) my answer would have been the same. I don't know what it is, it could be natural, or it could be an artifact. I have no idea. If it was found in some remote area of Earth my first impression would be "natural" but I would leave the door open to it being an artifact from an ancient peoples. We'd have to go look at it more closely, and bring in some experts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Quote 3" - It does appear to me that by all accounts it would NOT be a huge leap as you put it to hypothesize that this artifact could indeed be the remains of a once living organism which could very easily have evolved there.<b>Malcolm </b><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Response to Quote 3: "Appears", "could", "could very easily have", are not scientific arguments, nor are they evidence. But evidence supporting these statements would be. My Aunt <b>could be </b> my Uncle if she had a certain part of the anatomy. But she doesn't. Or at least I don't think she does. We would need evidence.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"Quote 4" - I have shown this image to quite a few people now and it is interesting to see the responses. In each case, they all concluded that they see some form of a design. Some mentioned that it had a natural sense to it while most saw the artifact as a statement and commented that they could see several facial designs at the very top. Interestingly, the comment was made on a couple of instances that they could see a face or head within a face of head and that o the backside of the facing head, could be seen another face looking reward. Each of the people who reviewed the image are professionals and two were very much involved in a profession that involved geology. Neither saw any correlation to anything geological especially in the anaglyph where the artifact is seen quite clearly as being dethatched from surface concluding that the artifact is sitting in the place as if by purpose.
Thus far, you are the only person who has commented that they see no aspect of design in this artifact.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Response to Quote 4: First let me start off by saying I see faces galore in that image. I see faces everywhere and anywhere. I see a giant head of which your artifact is an ear. I see all kinds of small faces. I take none of them seriously, because I am a virtual "face observatory". When I'm driving my car, I have to be careful not to look at the passing Douglas Firs for fear of seeing a face that takes my attention and has me drive off a cliff. So seeing faces in and of itself means nothing.

Response to Quote 4 (cont): There are a variety of Propaganda and Debating Techniques and Fallacies that have been used throughout history, and are used daily in the political arena. Here are some that you are employing in the Quote 4 paragraph:

{from The Orange Papers]


<ul><li> Appeal to Numbers (Argumentum ad Numerum)

Argumentum ad Numerum maintains that the more people who are convinced about something, the more likely it is to be true, and the more people who do something, the more right it is. This trick is close to the trick of "Everybody knows" "Everybody knows that we are right." </li>

<li> Imaginary Evidence

Notice the lack of hard evidence in this article:

<i>Two recent studies support the potential effectiveness of this [12-Step] treatment when carried out by mental health professionals. The first studied alcohol-dependent outpatients. The group of subjects that received 12-step treatment improved substantially. The second study focused on VA inpatients with alcohol and/or other substance use disorders. At the one-year follow up, the group of subjects that had received 12-step treatment improved significantly in many life areas.
...
A recent award-winning study conducted at SUNY-Albany lends support to this notion.
Better Treatment for the MICA (Mentally Ill Chemically Addicted) Patient, Mark Lazarus, Coordinator, Partial Hospitalization Program, The Holliswood Hospital, NEW YORK CITYVOICES: April/May 2002 </i>

Just try to figure out what studies the author is citing. It is impossible. (There was no bibliography.) You have no way of knowing whether the studies were valid or faked or improperly conducted, or whether the author interpreted the results correctly. While such grand statements sound good, they are actually meaningless because they are completely unverifiable, and hence, unreliable.</li>

<li> Appeal to Authorities (Argumentum ad Verecundiam)

Cite and quote all kinds of authorities to support your statements. Also seem to obtain support from famous people who are not present to state their actual opinions.

<i>Example: A radio advertisement for vitamins says, "Dr. Sawbones, a recognized authority on blah-blah..." </i>Recognized by whom? What medical school or university or council of doctors recognized Dr. Sawbones as an authority on anything? We got no actual evidence that Dr. Sawbones knows anything, just a passive-voice declaration that Dr. Sawbones has been "recognized".</li>

<li>Proof by Anecdote

Proof by Anecdote is a stunt where you make some grand generalization, and then you tell one or more stories that appear to support your generalization, and then you conclude that the point is proven. (You can ignore all of the other stories that disprove your point.)</li>

<li>Unsupported Claims

Make any grand claims you wish, supported by no facts at all.</li>
</ul>

You'll note that I ignored the slight ad-hominem of accusing me of an "inflammatory" remark, but even with that omission, I could go on all day. But there's no need to, because these fallacies I presented all have one thing in common:

<b> They are not evidence. </b>

Evidence would consist of something factual that supports your claim that this is obviously an artifact. In a previous message you said this:

<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Marsevidence01</i>
<br />1. Here we have an image of a strange looking artifact I discovered on Mars which, by all accounts looks to be artificial and in my reckoning, has tremendous significance, anything less, would be unscientific and irresponsible not to acknowledge it as such.
Malcolm Scott
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To which I asked you: <b>Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think "by all accounts [it] looks to be artificial." </b> But you didn't answer. Can you answer it?



rd

<b>[Malcolm] "5. Could it be the remains of a once living organism?"</b>

<b>[Rich] "5. Maybe, but that's one huge leap."</b>

***LB
Is it?

To claim it 'WAS once a living organism', yes. To ask 'Could it have been', not so much.
***LB

<b>[Malcolm] "It does appear to me that by all accounts it would NOT be a huge leap as you put it to hypothesize that this artifact could indeed be the remains of a once living organism which could very easily have evolved there."

"So to say 'a huge leap' is somewhat inflammatory."</b>

***LB
Is it?

You did take a large-ish step with your point 5. I've already said I'm skeptical that it was large enough to qualify as a huge leap. And now I'm going to say that I'm skeptical that mischaracterizing the size of this step rises to the level of being inflamatory.

But, I could be wrong. On either count or on both.

We can talk about if you guys want to.
***LB