In response to Robert's post at:
http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/13177.html

Robert wrote:
Hey, Alex, I knew it was only a matter of a short time before you heard about that paper. I slogged through it last night, and found it to be a testimony to Hoagland's experience as a science writer--it reads well and argues persuasively, and is likely to impress (even awe) people without the background to properly evaluate the claims. To my mind, that makes it worthy of a comprehensive rebuttal from you--they're trying to play on your turf, which gives you a wealth of opportunity to shoot them down, point-by-point and with authority. To let it slide risks allowing the patina of scientific jargon and lipservice to the scientific method to carry the day.

Alex writes:
Thanks, but no thanks. Frankly, I'm not interested in engaging in a debate or "rebuttal campaign" with the Hoaglandites. While some may find it hard to understand, most scientists are interested in debating *rational* people who are susceptible to logical arguments and adhere to the Scientific Method. Your comment above (viz. "To let it slide risks allowing the patina of scientific jargon and lipservice to the scientific method to carry the day.") may be true to an extent, but there is a corollary: To engage in a debate risks giving a patina (or better yet, a lacuna) of respectibility/legitimacy to their pseudoscientific claims. At any rate, suffice it to say that the Hoagland and Bara "paper", which I managed to force myself to read in its entirety over the weekend, rebuts itself with numerous, almost childish elementary errors, flawed reasoning, and a biased, selective set of references, many of which contradict some of the assertions in the "paper" itself.

Robert wrote:
I've followed the work of England and Palermo for a while now, and their plot of stains on Mars appears to be fairly disciplined and well executed. Their results are presented on Palermo's Web site, which requires some wading through anomalism material; but Jill England, who actually did the analysis, is a bonafide database analyst and her methodology appears above reproach. Might there be some truth to be gleaned from their data?

Alex writes:
I haven't found any reason to abandon the dust avalanche scar model, especially given what we know about the aeolian environment on Mars, which seems to be the simplest explanation. The LPSC abstracts on the subject by Sullivan, Edgett, Malin, etc. do put forth a fairly consistent model that, to my knowledge, has not yet been shown to be implausible. Moreover, I do know that Rob Sullivan, who has been at the forefront of researching these features has a fairly lengthy paper on the subject in press with JGR-Planets, part of the forthcoming MGS Special Issue. That said, I really haven't looked at Palermo's web site, so I cannot comment on their claims or their methodology, which may indeed have some merit, or not.

======================

In response to Gary's post at:
http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/13187.html

Gary wrote:
However it quickly becomes apparent that this is the work of a professional liar.

Alex writes:
I'm tempted to say that you're half right, but I won't ;-)

======================

In response to Robert's post at:
http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/13212.html

Robert wrote:
You're underestimating 'em, Ed, and that could be dangerous. They reach more than the young and feeble, they're able to persuade large numbers of well-intentioned but scientifically-illiterate people of all kinds.

Alex writes:
I have mixed emotions on this observation, as well as Peter Ness', which I find fairly accurate, though somewhat naive. From an idealistic standpoint, of course, scientists should always strive to combat pseudoscience, misinformation, etc. with straightforward arguments, and then let the chips fall where they may. The problem with this approach, however, is that there comes a limiting point where "rational" discourse is wasted on True Believers. Moreover, one might even advance the argument that weeding out these types of people is a form of natural selection.

Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii