It's always a good thing to question what we read. A while ago, I wrote about misleading headlines, where one of the examples concerned a scientific discovery on Mars.
Now, when it comes to science, we really do need to have an element of scepticism. The reason is because scientists are always trying to validate their research in order to obtain funding.
Imagine being a research scientist and not discovering any evidence for any of your theories for 30 years. Whilst you, as the scientist, may still believe in your theory, the public (or, more importantly, the government) will lose hope and will struggle to keep supporting you.
Hence, any shred of 'evidence' which might support your theory needs to be written about and broadcast to the world so that someone will believe in you and continue giving you the money you need. Sometimes, a jump to a particular conclusion from a tenuous piece of 'evidence' will get you that badly-needed funding. From your perspective, it's worth the risk.
This is exactly what happened with Mars.
On September 29th, 2015, NASA told the world that they had found "evidence that liquid water flows on today's Mars". Now, as you read through the article, you'll find that they haven't actually found water... they've only discovered 'darkish streaks' which might have been caused by flowing water.
They wanted to find evidence for their theory: if they can find water on Mars, they might be able to find life (microscopic life) on Mars, too.
But to send probes into space, landing safely on Mars, then moving and taking photos all controlled from Earth... costs a lot of money. NASA needs funding.
When the report came out, I was sceptical. Not because of a firm belief that Earth is the only inhabited planet in the entire universe (I don't really care too much whether life exists on other planets), but because of how the article was worded. The headline was misleading. And if scientists exaggerate what they've discovered, then we should be wary.
I'm always sceptical of new scientific 'discoveries' because I don't want to simply believe whatever new theory some guy in a lab proposes, without the proper scrutiny to know that it's really the truth. I will not let my worldview be blown and tossed by the wind of scientific theory without sufficient evidence.*
Over time, things become clearer.
The 'streaks' on Mars... would seem to be cause by 'granular flows' (e.g. sand), not water. NASA had to amend the initial article by including a link to this one, which updated the evidence.
So my scepticism paid off: water has not yet been found on Mars.
* (Quite simply, this is why some people have ended up in the mess of believing that there are over 100 different 'genders'... and to question it only attracts intolerant and bigoted insults from those people who don't want evidence to prove them wrong.)
Now, when it comes to science, we really do need to have an element of scepticism. The reason is because scientists are always trying to validate their research in order to obtain funding.
Imagine being a research scientist and not discovering any evidence for any of your theories for 30 years. Whilst you, as the scientist, may still believe in your theory, the public (or, more importantly, the government) will lose hope and will struggle to keep supporting you.
Hence, any shred of 'evidence' which might support your theory needs to be written about and broadcast to the world so that someone will believe in you and continue giving you the money you need. Sometimes, a jump to a particular conclusion from a tenuous piece of 'evidence' will get you that badly-needed funding. From your perspective, it's worth the risk.
This is exactly what happened with Mars.
On September 29th, 2015, NASA told the world that they had found "evidence that liquid water flows on today's Mars". Now, as you read through the article, you'll find that they haven't actually found water... they've only discovered 'darkish streaks' which might have been caused by flowing water.
They wanted to find evidence for their theory: if they can find water on Mars, they might be able to find life (microscopic life) on Mars, too.
But to send probes into space, landing safely on Mars, then moving and taking photos all controlled from Earth... costs a lot of money. NASA needs funding.
When the report came out, I was sceptical. Not because of a firm belief that Earth is the only inhabited planet in the entire universe (I don't really care too much whether life exists on other planets), but because of how the article was worded. The headline was misleading. And if scientists exaggerate what they've discovered, then we should be wary.
I'm always sceptical of new scientific 'discoveries' because I don't want to simply believe whatever new theory some guy in a lab proposes, without the proper scrutiny to know that it's really the truth. I will not let my worldview be blown and tossed by the wind of scientific theory without sufficient evidence.*
Over time, things become clearer.
The 'streaks' on Mars... would seem to be cause by 'granular flows' (e.g. sand), not water. NASA had to amend the initial article by including a link to this one, which updated the evidence.
So my scepticism paid off: water has not yet been found on Mars.
* (Quite simply, this is why some people have ended up in the mess of believing that there are over 100 different 'genders'... and to question it only attracts intolerant and bigoted insults from those people who don't want evidence to prove them wrong.)
