More Scientists Speculating

Why do scientists insist on publishing speculation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3577551.stm

I think its rediculous that these so called highly intelligent people publish information which is nothing more than a guess.

[Pritch]

Originally Posted by gary_580

Why do scientists insist on publishing speculation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3577551.stm

I think its rediculous that these so called highly intelligent people publish information which is nothing more than a guess.

Because, pretty much everything is a guess and if scientists only published things which could be proven beyond doubt, we'd still be in the dark ages. Much of modern science is based purely on theories, to take a commonplace example, the theory of relativity.

If Einstein had decided to do the extra work involved to prove the theory of relativity beyond doubt before publishing it, we'd never have heard about it today, and much of 20th century physics wouldn't have evolved beyond Newtonian physics.

I wasnt suggesting that they should prove it beyond doubt. All that has happened is they have found methane and therefore they are saying there must be life. What assumption is this based on? its based on knowledge learnt from earth and not another planet. Who is saying that in another environment that methane isnt produced in a different way.

[Pritch]

Originally Posted by gary_580

I wasnt suggesting that they should prove it beyond doubt. All that has happened is they have found methane and therefore they are saying there must be life. What assumption is this based on? its based on knowledge learnt from earth and not another planet. Who is saying that in another environment that methane isnt produced in a different way.

I can see where you're coming from, but you do have to bear in mind that methane is only produced in a handful of different ways, either by combustion of carbon and hydrogen (i.e, the volcano theory, or something else hot enough to do it) or through decay of other organic compounds. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other explanation.

Of course, it could be that the fundamental principles of organic chemistry behave differently somewhere else in the solar system, which would cause scientists everywhere to have a fit.

At the end of the day, science is about peer review. Few scientists are bold enough to venture out with an opinion saying 'YES! This is definately what's happening'. I could be that this is the most important development in what we know about Mars for years, or it could be that someone else will say 'Ah, but what about...' tomorrow and debunk the theory.

[altis]

...All that has happened is they have found methane and therefore they are saying there must be life...

Oh no they're not!

...Methane has been found in the Martian atmosphere which scientists say could be a sign of present-day life on Mars...

...Is there life beneath the soil?...

...On Earth bacteria produce methane from hydrogen and carbon dioxide. Terrestrial microbes that produce methane do not need oxygen to thrive, and these are thought to be the type of microbes that could possibly live on Mars.

All they are saying for certain is that something must be replenishing the methane that has been detected in the atmosphere.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by gary_580

they are saying there must be life.

They haven't said that at all, I suggest you go back and read your article.

What assumption is this based on?

Its based on the fact that methane is made either from reactions that are associated with living organisms or volcanic activity. It doesn't take a top scientist to note that if there is no sign of any active volcano's then it is more than likely living cells that are making it.

I can't see the beef here, am I being stupid or something??

Edit - I must be out of practice, Altis beat me to it

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by gary_580

Why do scientists insist on publishing speculation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3577551.stm

I think its rediculous that these so called highly intelligent people publish information which is nothing more than a guess.

It is my personal policy to ignore reports you hear on the radio or articles in the paper that start.

"A new report by scientists today" because most of it is bull$h1t. This gives you cancer, that gives you cancer." or " if you're taller than 6'5" walk backwards and say bibble to passers by you're 13% more likely to live longer that someone who doesn't." Who gives a toss go and discover something useful.

Originally Posted by dellwear

They haven't said that at all, I suggest you go back and read your article.

What i meant is that is what they are eluding too, otherwise why publish it as it means nothing.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by gary_580

Why do scientists insist on publishing speculation?

I would say that it is because what they are publishing isn't generally intended for general consumption, it is submitted for the purposes of peer review in the academic and research community. That way, people share their information and other people can build on that and help to either prove or disprove it. That's not to say that they have a problem with their work being picked up by the newspapers, just that it's a low priority consideration.

[TheBlueRaja]

OMG - THERES LIFE ON MARS....

ARRRRRRRGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!

SAVE YOURSELVES.... Whimper....

I believe it was Arthur C Clarke who said that if there *was* intelligent life on Mars, we could be in line for the biggest interplanetary lawsuit ever when they find out how we've been slandering them in book and film for the last 100 years...!!

[punky]

Originally Posted by gary_580

Why do scientists insist on publishing speculation?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3577551.stm

I think its rediculous that these so called highly intelligent people publish information which is nothing more than a guess.

Probably because the first people that talk about it, will get the credit if it ever does get proved true. If the Mars rover finds any methane, the Mars Express people can then say: "Ahh we told you so last month".

Also serves as good PR and help support further funding for exploration.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by gary_580

What i meant is that is what they are eluding too, otherwise why publish it as it means nothing.

It's the media that are eluding to it. You can bet that the scientists papers just refered to the methane, its concentration etc, where it's been found, that it's been confirmed.

[Simon Rochelle]

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ne_040329.html

Actually, they have given two primary sources of the methane, and at the moment they have no idea which one it is. They have to speculate as thats as far as there understanding goes now. With further research im sure we will get the truth.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Simon Rochelle

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ne_040329.html

Actually, they have given two primary sources of the methane, and at the moment they have no idea which one it is. They have to speculate as thats as far as there understanding goes now. With further research im sure we will get the truth.

Which is fine provided they make it clear what is fact and what is speculation (which they did)