Top 5 Most Recent Articles
Top 5 Most Popular Articles
NEWS by David Tytell
One Less "Possibility of Life"?
I'm getting pretty tired of the phrase "possibility of life." These three words might be the most overused in all of astronomy. In fact, I dare anyone to find a popular-level planetary-science story that mentions the word "water" and doesn't include those three magic words.
I'm not saying the search for life isn't important — I'm simply saying that we've reached a saturation point. Between the 30-year-old Viking lander labeled-release experiment and the purportedly fossil-bearing Martian meteorite ALH 84001, the public has had its hopes lifted and crushed more than once. And with so many overanxious press officers and journalists trying to sell newspapers, I think people have heard "wolf" a few times too many.
That's why the latest press release to cross my desk is so refreshing. A team of astronomers from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are publishing a new model for the interior of Saturn's icy moon Enceladus. The Cassini orbiter found active geysers spewing from Enceladus's surface, and since then everyone (including yours truly) has been trying to connect the water coming off the surface to the "possibility of life."
The press release does a pretty good job of explaining the science. For those of you who want the CliffsNotes version, the model finds a way to power the geysers and to form the associated geologic surface features without water ever melting. In this "Frigid Faithful" idea, the moon's water ice always stays well below its melting point. And without liquid water, there is no "possibility of life." You'll find the paper in an upcoming issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Do you think we've reached the saturation point? Are you unimpressed when reporters and press officers claim another result might mean life is out there? And are there any other phrases used by science writers that just drive you crazy?
I'm not saying the search for life isn't important — I'm simply saying that we've reached a saturation point. Between the 30-year-old Viking lander labeled-release experiment and the purportedly fossil-bearing Martian meteorite ALH 84001, the public has had its hopes lifted and crushed more than once. And with so many overanxious press officers and journalists trying to sell newspapers, I think people have heard "wolf" a few times too many.
Just because Saturn's moon Enceladus has active geysers doesn't mean it harbors alien life. That's the take home message from an upcoming scientific paper.
NASA / JPL / Space Science Institute
The press release does a pretty good job of explaining the science. For those of you who want the CliffsNotes version, the model finds a way to power the geysers and to form the associated geologic surface features without water ever melting. In this "Frigid Faithful" idea, the moon's water ice always stays well below its melting point. And without liquid water, there is no "possibility of life." You'll find the paper in an upcoming issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Do you think we've reached the saturation point? Are you unimpressed when reporters and press officers claim another result might mean life is out there? And are there any other phrases used by science writers that just drive you crazy?
Posted by David Tytell, August 15, 2007
The following comments do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Sky Publishing.
By posting a comment, you agree to our Rules of Conduct and Terms of Use.
By posting a comment, you agree to our Rules of Conduct and Terms of Use.
First comments (from 15)
Overused Phrases
Posted by Robert
August 15, 2007 At 01:15 PM PDT
I'm tired of reading on EVERY news release for EVERY new space probe (and earth-based telescope), how this one is going to help explain the "Origin of the Universe".
Over-used Phrases
Posted by Robert
August 15, 2007 At 01:21 PM PDT
In addition to "possibility of life" I'm tired of hearing on EVERY news release about EVERY new space probe or telescope, how this one is going to help explain/understand the "origin of the universe".
Overused Phrases
Posted by Richard Carroll
August 15, 2007 At 10:46 PM PDT
"...could hit the Earth." (But almost certainly won't.)
Water = Life?
Posted by astro-nut
August 16, 2007 At 04:45 AM PDT
I agree that the jumping to conclusions whenever water is found has gotten out of control. Yes, water is neccesary for life, but just because water is found certainly doesn't mean that life is there. But evoultionist go crazy over the slightest hint of water, because they are desparate to find extraterrestial life to support their theories, which are already failing.
Water = Life?
Posted by dgp
August 16, 2007 At 04:16 PM PDT
Amen, Astro-NUT!
I should add that even if extraterrestrial life were found, the fact would still remain that it must have been created by other, more intelligent life, because it'd be obviously too complex to have been otherwise. (And we all know who I'm talking about...)
Besides, since we are merely human beings, we can never comprehend the ways of you-know-who. Therefore, we cannot ever acquire true knowledge of the workings of the universe created by Him.
But, gotta run. I'm in my observatory trying to get orbital data and a light-curve on 4627 Thales, an asteroid, so that I can predict its path and model its surface features. TTFN
Life On Other Planets?
Posted by Stargazer
August 17, 2007 At 08:58 AM PDT
I totally agree with Astro-Nut and Dgp! Water is necessary for sustaining life, but as Astro-Nut said, just because water is there doesn't mean there is life. For me it is annoying when they say, "We've found water" and then quickly add that water 'use to be there' but isn't now. Wouldn't it be better to say, "We've found traces that water use to be here but it isn't now"? Then they chuck whatever speculation up to evolution. I don't know why Mars use to have water but doesn't now. Only God knows why.
Possibility of Life-David Tytell Article
Posted by Barry Scholles
August 17, 2007 At 12:24 PM PDT
David-
Calm down. Calm down. You need to visit Starbuck's a little less often. "Possibility of life" is a phrase us sci-fi and sci followers have been using and hearing since the '50s.
I'm not tired of it.
So chill out. There's a lot more meaningful phrases to attack like "country music." LOL.
Barry Scholles
Exaggerated Speculation about life on other planets
Posted by Ann Sidbrant
August 19, 2007 At 11:22 AM PDT
I am the owner of a book from 1964, Beyond the Solar System by Willy Ley and Charles Bonestell, and with a foreword Werner von Braun. This book confidently predicts that Alpha Centauri A will be found to have planets and probably even life, because Alpha Centauri A is the same type of sun as the Sun. (As if that would ensure that it has planets, let alone life.)
I also own a translated Russian book from 1959 (published ofter the giddying success of Sputnik). This book claims that there are jungles and perhaps dinosaurs on Venus. And it claims that Mars definitely has canals and an advanced civilization!
Today there is no talk about canals on Mars, but the buzz about life on Mars is as insistent as ever. Look, there's ice here, and look, there's a dry flood bed... so obviously there was liquid water on Mars in the past! And where there's liquid water, there is life! And because there must have been life on Mars in the past that life is probably still there, because life is tough! Hey, we just proved that there is life on Mars!
I will be as excited as anyone else when astronomers really find solid evidence that there is life on another planet. But until they do... why all this breathless speculation? Are astronomers telling the public that there is life on Mars because they think that this is what the public wants to hear? Is astronomy about pandering feel-good wishful thinking to the public?
So far there is not a shred of positive evidence that life exists anywhere but on Earth. Perhaps life really is rare in the universe. Perhaps we need to dwell on that possibility a lot more than we do. Perhaps we need to question a lot more than we do what we are doing to our marvellous planet Earth.
Water means life..
Posted by Ddently
August 20, 2007 At 03:16 PM PDT
I agree that the phrase is overused..but..
I have a very different view than what's commonly believed:
The assumption that life needs water.
Life HERE needs water, obviously. But why is it automatically assumed that ANY form of life would need water?
re: Astro-News Annoyances
Posted by dgp
August 20, 2007 At 10:19 PM PDT
Keith Kline,
The problem with regarding creationism as merely one side in a scientific "debate" is that creationism is not a scientific hypothesis, but a philosophical one. Creationism is fundamentally opposed to the philosophy which underlies all of science, the philosophy of metaphysical naturalism (specifically the assumption of that philosophy in the face of the question: what is the origin of life?). This does not mean that creationism vs. naturalism should not be debated (it definitely should!), but it does mean that any such debate belongs in Philosophy 101, not Astrophysics or Evolutionary Biology.
For a defense of this view, I refer interested readers to the highly original op-ed "The Bait and Switch of Intelligent Design", by Dr. Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute. It can be read here:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11055&news_iv_ctrl=1077
|
|
|
||
|
|
Date:
|
comments (15)