284 lines
15 KiB
Plaintext
284 lines
15 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: THE ANOMALOUS MARTIAN SURFACE FILE: UFO3335
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
COPY OF LETTER SENT TO IRA FLATOW, PBS SCIENCE EDITOR, ON THE
|
|
TOPIC OF A POSSIBLE PROGRAM DISCUSSING UNUSUAL MARTIAN SURFACE
|
|
FEATURES. IF YOU SUPPORT THIS IDEA FOR A PROGRAM, PLEASE LET
|
|
MR. FLATOW KNOW (70726,537).
|
|
_________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sonoma State University
|
|
Department of Philosophy
|
|
Rohnert Park, CA 94928
|
|
(707) 664-2163
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ira Flatow (By E-Mail) 10-16-92
|
|
Dear Mr. Flatow,
|
|
|
|
This is a follow-up to my letter of last week discussing the manner in
|
|
which the questions raised by anomalous Martian surface features might
|
|
serve as a focus for a program discussion on scientific methodology in
|
|
general and SETI methodology in particular, bringing into view the
|
|
related issues of the ethic of scientific epistemology, and the ethical
|
|
obligation of the scientific community to follow up on research that may
|
|
have great social importance. The controversy surrounding the Martian
|
|
anomalies offers a unique opportunity to bring a number of issues
|
|
regarding the nature of science to a public forum. Here I want to fill in
|
|
the details of the sequence of topics that might be brought up in such a
|
|
discussion. I will list the topics in the form of a series of interlocking
|
|
questions.
|
|
|
|
1. What methods were used (i.e., by Torun) to develop the data upon
|
|
which the hypothesis of artificial origin is based?
|
|
|
|
2. What are the scientific objections, if any, that might be leveled
|
|
against those methods?
|
|
|
|
3. If the objections are ones that can be resolved by research,
|
|
particularly by efforts to duplicate the data through independent
|
|
measurements, is it a violation of scientific ethic for the scientific
|
|
community not to engage in this effort?
|
|
|
|
4. If the objections are in fact eliminated by independent measurements,
|
|
and the original results are confirmed, to what degree do these results
|
|
support the hypothesis of artificial origin?
|
|
|
|
5. If the hypothesis is strongly supported by the independently
|
|
confirmed data, what is the social, political, and cultural importance of
|
|
the hypothesis, should it turn out to be verified?
|
|
|
|
6. If the hypothesis is determined to be of great social, political, and
|
|
cultural significance, does the scientific community have an ethical
|
|
obligation to society to seek verification of the hypothesis by direct
|
|
observation (through the Mars Observer mission and possible future
|
|
missions)?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Given this sequence of questions, I will set out below a summary of the
|
|
factors that might enter into each step, and that could potentially be
|
|
brought out either (briefly) in a single discussion or (at length) in a
|
|
series of discussions. I will follow the order of the questions listed
|
|
above in this expansion of the topic. (Please note that some of the
|
|
details below are based upon my current understanding and may not be
|
|
entirely accurate.)
|
|
|
|
A. What methods were used (i.e., by Torun) to develop the data upon
|
|
which the hypothesis of artificial origin is based?
|
|
|
|
(1) NASA Viking data tapes were enhanced for detail by Dr. Mark
|
|
Carlotto of the Analytic Sciences Corporation in Reading, MA,
|
|
using state-of-the-art algorithms. (2) An orthographic projection of
|
|
the original Viking frame was obtained from the National Space
|
|
Sciences Data Center to ensure measurement accuracy. (3) The
|
|
orthographic image was compared with the Carlotto enhancement to
|
|
confirm the accuracy of the latter. (4) Inferences were made
|
|
regarding the full outline of the structure, based upon visible edges
|
|
and corners. (4) the precise latitude of the structure, at its (inferred)
|
|
apex, was revised from an original measurement by means of a new
|
|
analysis of Viking Orbiter navigation information carried out for
|
|
NASA by Merton Davies of the RAND Corporation. (5)
|
|
Geomorphological evaluation of the structure was carried out based
|
|
upon its inferred original geometry in comparison with current
|
|
understanding of the regional geology as represented in professional
|
|
papers and books on the topic. (6) Measurements of the internal
|
|
angles of the structure, their mathematical relations, and projections
|
|
of important lines outward to other anomalous features, as well as
|
|
lines of latitude drawn through corners and the apex, were studied
|
|
for their possible mathematical significance.
|
|
|
|
B. What are the scientific objections, if any, that might be leveled
|
|
against those methods?
|
|
|
|
How reliable are the Carlotto imaging procedures and the
|
|
latitude/longitude grid? What is the legitimacy of the inferential
|
|
reconstruction of the figure? Have all geological explanations been
|
|
explored? A casual inspection of the full frame 70A11, for example,
|
|
gives the impression that the D&M pyramid, as well as the
|
|
polyhedral group of features that have been considered anomalous
|
|
called "the city," are situated among a multitude of projecting natural
|
|
features in a manner that makes them appear as "of a kind" with
|
|
those features. In particular, "the city" looks like the northeast end of
|
|
a natural chain of similar projections (with the single exception of
|
|
the feature called "the fort"). What has been done to compare and
|
|
differentiate these obviously natural features from the ones in
|
|
question? Precise measurements of the geometry of these landforms,
|
|
carried out in the same manner as those used to measure the D&M
|
|
pyramid, and subsequent comparative geomorphological evaluations,
|
|
are called for. (In the entire discussion to date I have never seen this
|
|
crucial comparison made.)
|
|
|
|
C. If the objections are ones that can be resolved by research,
|
|
particularly by efforts to duplicate the data through independent
|
|
measurements, is it a violation of scientific ethic for the scientific
|
|
community not to engage in this effort?
|
|
|
|
It is common in evaluating inductive reasoning to acknowledge the
|
|
weight carried by authority: that is, the testimony of experts in a
|
|
field does add to the probability of the conclusion. Here we are
|
|
dealing with data obtained by experienced professionals in
|
|
responsible institutions (Carlotto, Torun, Davies, and even NASA),
|
|
not with guesses of amateurs. This increases the probability that the
|
|
results obtained would hold up if attempts were made to duplicate
|
|
them by other trained professionals. There is no procedure here,
|
|
furthermore, that could not be tested by attempts at duplicating the
|
|
results by independent experts. In particular, the reliability of
|
|
Torun's reconstruction of the full perimeter of the D&M pyramid
|
|
can be measured against standard expertise in evaluation of satellite
|
|
reconnaissance photos and cartographic methodology in general. A
|
|
further question is this: can the geomorphological evaluation be
|
|
made to apply even without the inferential reconstruction, or does it
|
|
collapse altogether once the inferential reconstruction is questioned?
|
|
Are the angles and measurements in the unreconstructed figure
|
|
significant on their own, or meaningless?
|
|
|
|
Given the tentative reliability of the results as indicated by the very
|
|
high qualifications of the researchers, and the fact that those results
|
|
can be easily tested by the application of known methods by
|
|
independent investigators, it is a violation of scientific ethics not to
|
|
attempt duplication of the results for the following reason:
|
|
duplication of results is one of the primary methodologies of
|
|
scientific epistemology. If a result cannot be duplicated by other
|
|
researchers, it loses its legitimacy. If at least some other researchers
|
|
who are in a position to contribute refuse to do so, they are in effect
|
|
closing the door on scientific methodology. This, of course, does not
|
|
mean that all scientists must always attempt to duplicate the results
|
|
of all other scientists. It does mean that responsible institutions or
|
|
laboratories with capabilities in the field in question have an ongoing
|
|
responsibility to survey significant data in that field and to be
|
|
responsive to the need for independent verification prior to accepting
|
|
or dismissing hypotheses based upon that data. (An example of
|
|
scientific responsiveness to an important claim is the recent furor
|
|
over "cold fusion" in which the ultimate discrediting of the claims of
|
|
the original researchers was due to failure to duplicate their results.
|
|
Many members of the scientific community, internationally,
|
|
participated in attempting to duplicate the original research.)
|
|
|
|
D. If the objections are in fact eliminated by independent measurements,
|
|
and the original results are confirmed, to what degree do these results
|
|
support the hypothesis of artificial origin?
|
|
|
|
This question breaks down into archeological, geological, and SETI
|
|
issues. One archeologist, Professor James F. Strange of the
|
|
University of South Florida at Tampa, has commented in a letter of
|
|
March 17, 1989 to Richard Hoagland that from the archeological
|
|
point of view the data is sufficient to support the formulation of an
|
|
hypothesis of artificial origin to be tested by direct (automated or
|
|
manned mission) observation, including eventually "test by
|
|
excavation." This viewpoint, of course, would be strongly supported
|
|
if the geological evaluation of the features (see B above) shows a
|
|
significant difference between the features in question and the
|
|
surrounding landforms.
|
|
|
|
The final result of Torun's analysis of the D&M pyramid was a set
|
|
of mathematically significant numbers with a high degree of
|
|
redundancy, having logical implications that appear to relate to the
|
|
geometry of circumscribed polyhedra and possibly to the dynamics
|
|
of planetary formation . The problem of the application of SETI
|
|
methodology to the data produced by Torun's analysis is an
|
|
especially interesting one. Hoagland and Torun cite a number of
|
|
discussions of possible modes of encoding messages to (or from)
|
|
extrasolar civilizations, including an early suggestion by Gauss using
|
|
the geometry of circumscribed polyhedra, the manner of
|
|
encodement that appears to exist at Cydonia. Are there any parallels
|
|
between the assumptions used to develop the pioneer mission's
|
|
message plaque and the geometrical data at Cydonia? Are there any
|
|
analogues to the program for filtering "information" from "noise" in
|
|
radio signals that could be applied to the interpretation of signals
|
|
embodied in architectural geometry? Input from SETI specialists,
|
|
e.g. Carl Sagan, would be of considerable interest here. I would like
|
|
to see a full conversation between Sagan and Torun on the question
|
|
of whether an extraterrestrial message might be encoded in the
|
|
manner found through the geometric measurements of the D&M
|
|
pyramid and surrounding features.
|
|
|
|
E. If the hypothesis is strongly supported by the independently
|
|
confirmed data, what is the social, political, and cultural importance of
|
|
the hypothesis, should it turn out to be verified?
|
|
|
|
The question of the social, political, and cultural importance of the
|
|
hypothesis of artificial construction is a challenging one. Are
|
|
physical scientists, astronomers, etc., really qualified to evaluate such
|
|
a question? Probably not. If not, who is? If determination of the
|
|
importance of obtaining further data through the Mars Observer
|
|
mission depends upon evaluation of the social importance of the
|
|
hypothesis, who should shoulder the responsibility of making that
|
|
determination? Is it an abdication of responsibility to leave such
|
|
determination to physical scientists and engineers? At the very least,
|
|
anthropology and psychology are essential elements of such an
|
|
evaluation, and I would argue that a representative of the field of
|
|
philosophy in approaching this issue is an absolute necessity. What
|
|
is the attitude of NASA administration toward recommendations
|
|
from such fields as anthropology, psychology, and philosophy? Does
|
|
the intrusion of potential E.T. data into the otherwise "objective"
|
|
field of physics and astronomy create a perceived threat to the
|
|
autonomy of the NASA organization? If so, what can be done to
|
|
generate communication between these branches of science? Is it
|
|
possible that even in the legitimized SETI project (the one currently
|
|
underway), the conceptual structure has been limited by the absence
|
|
of input from other fields?
|
|
|
|
What about political considerations? In many motion pictures such
|
|
as E.T., Starman, Iceman, etc, it is the fashion to depict
|
|
governmental and scientific organizations as irrationally hostile to
|
|
any evidence of alien existence usually bent on killing the alien and
|
|
eradicating any evidence of its existence. Is this an accurate
|
|
depiction, and could such attitudes be invoked in the current
|
|
situation? If so, why? Would confirmation of the existence of
|
|
extraterrestrial intelligence unleash some form of destructive
|
|
psychological force upon society? Is the acceptibility of SETI
|
|
exploration outside the solar system and the resistance to SETI
|
|
involvement within the solar system based upon the mitigation of
|
|
this psychological effect that would be produced by the "distance"
|
|
(and therefore, still in some sense the unreality) of signals from the
|
|
stars? Does the general public have a right to know truths of such
|
|
magnitude, or is there a point where the discoveries of science have
|
|
so vast an impact upon the social fabric that government is not
|
|
wrong to suppress them?
|
|
|
|
F. If the hypothesis is determined to be of great social, political, and
|
|
cultural significance, does the scientific community have an ethical
|
|
obligation to society to seek verification of the hypothesis by direct
|
|
observation (through the Mars Observer mission and possible future
|
|
missions)?
|
|
|
|
I have heard the opinion voiced that NASA cannot afford to admit
|
|
to an active interest in investigating the anomalous features on Mars
|
|
because to do so would threaten congressional support for missions
|
|
to Mars. Is this true? What is the relationship of NASA to the
|
|
scientific community in general (on the one hand) and to
|
|
government (on the other)? As SETI progresses, whether on an
|
|
interstellar or interplanetary basis, is there a need for development of
|
|
a new sense of the ethics of discovery that includes government
|
|
policy vis-a-vis governmentally supported research institutions? To
|
|
what degree should the scientific community outside of NASA
|
|
communicate a nonpolitical ethic of discovery to the committees and
|
|
individuals within NASA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I trust that this sketch may give you a better idea of the kind of
|
|
conversation I would like to see generated on this topic.
|
|
|
|
Best Wishes,
|
|
|
|
Stan McDaniel
|
|
Professor of Philosophy
|
|
Sonoma State University
|
|
CS ID# 75320,3666
|
|
|
|
cc: Erol Torun, Richard Hoagland, James F. Strange, Compuserve
|
|
ISSUES forum, Compuserve Space Forum, and other interested
|
|
parties.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*********************************************************************
|
|
* -------->>> THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo <<<------- *
|
|
********************************************************************* |