Perhaps this should post under a different thread, or will get moved to the Flame Page, but I believe it has a rightful place in this thread. Be patient, and you'll see why. Besides, I like this campfire kinda thread, I'll keep it alive.

I have recently been chastized for my impatience at the rate of release of Mars Rover data. I apologised for being an ass in that thread. I also said I would shut up about getting the data; but I've been thinking 'bout this all day and want to get some things off my mind. Mind you...I'll wait for the sulfur rich and interesting data, I'm used to waiting weeks for chemical data to come back from the lab.

HOWEVER

While all of his points are valid (and I have been giving them serious thought) Jacob's tone concerns me.

First, that this was a "serious topic", implying the fate of Mars exploration and professional lives were threatened by my tounge-in-check graph and my Jerry MacQuire like "Show Me The Data" rant. I can tell that I've touched a nerve or stepped over some invisible line of local ethics, but this is still the Internet, no?

Second, was Jacob's use of the word "esoteric science" that should give pause to all scientists and non-scientists alike. Especially in a supposedly free country that pays for such exploration. How does this concept apply to open source software? Sure, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Couldn't access to open source software be dangerous in the hands of the idiots that code worms?

Is science a closed door process? That unless you belong to the inner circle you should shut up and wait outside while the great minds consider what you should know? Then the everyman can have his cute little ideas? Sure, I don't recommend the release of nuclear bomb technology, but the elemental composition of a rock on Mars? In fact, I'm all for requiring companies that do exploration on public lands to release their geologic data (chemical and otherwise) in a timely manner. Right now, in the US, alot of valuable data of public lands is simply never seen again. It goes in a drawer and gathers dust. I believe that NASA, and others, have done a great job of making their archives available on the web. It is truely an amazing resource.

I don't have the answers to these philosophic questions but that is why I post. To enter the idea-sphere and evolve my mind. As an explorer I hate locked doors and inaccessable outcrops. But I too lock some doors....so 'round.... and 'round..... it goes... It is important to ask these questions!

Along these lines, and that of the thread upon which I choose to post this, I would like to cite examples of Dogma within Science (with a geologic bent). I prefer science to religion 'cause religion is sooooo full of dogma. And science is self-correcting. Hopefully. But lest we cast too many stones, let us remind ourselves of our own shortcomings.

EXAMPLES of DOGMA and (overly) ESOTERIC SCIENCE:

Alfred Wegener's theory of Continental Drift predates Plate Tectonics by decades. But was laughed at until the discovery of seafloor spreading and the proposal of Plate Tectonics in the scientific literature (late 50's / early 60's). But the evidence was there all along, and not just on the seafloor. It was in the "ring of fire" ,in the geographic location of mountain belts near continetal margins, and in the correlation of fossils on different continents. No matter how much supporting evidence Wegerner and his students collected the Geosynclinal Model carried the day. Now he didn't have all the answers, but he was on the right track. I've had discussions with professors who taught the geosyncline model before Plate Tectonics who admit to being ashamed at the way they treated students who challenged the model with Wegner's papers. By the way, the link I've posted is an excellent biography and discussion of this issue from the USGS.

Or how 'bout ole William Smith, the father of Stratigraphy and Geologic Mapping, who was spurned by the "esoteric" Geologic Society of London, who withheld his rightly deserved honors and money because he was not a nobleman? Not a member of their powdered wig society (they refused his application), but just a country surveyor, Smith used the proceeds from his expert survey work and ability to design canals and drain farmland, to create and publish his amazing map. Like the x-prize of today, he was gambling he'd recieve money offered by the government for a map of geologic resources. But he got screwed, bigtime. It took a nobleman who admired his work and recognized an injustice to step in (16 years later). An appeal to the King granted Smith his prize and membership in the Geological Society of London. Sadly, this came late in his life. Before this correction, he was forced into debtor's prison on the very day his map was published and watched his wife slip into madness as he struggled to make a living. For more about this simple and brilliant man read Simon Winchester's book The Map that Changed The World.

Let us not forget John Harrison, another brilliant scientist and inventor, who fought the dogma of the esoteric Royal Society. Their dogma was that longitude could only be determined using astronomical observations. Of course, there was a lot of money at stake, not to mention egos. At every turn, Harrison's clocks were derided. His efforts to conduct experiments on British Navel ships was hampered. Then, when he proved it would work, the society refused to give him his prize. Shameful. The situation was corrected, kind of, but is that anyway to do science? Read Dava Sobels Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time. Or watch the Public Broadcasting's excellent video to see esoteric science in action.

I've personal experience with vastly different models of the deformation of greenshist belts in the Precambrian. I've seen how some proponents of new and challenging ideas are derided both professionally and personally. I've found that walking a traverse with two differing models in my head taxing, but both had their merits in my search for volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits. Since this is a personal observation, I've included no citations. If you want I will dig up and post a bibliography of papers outlining the different views, but it is a bit esoteric. ;-)

Oh, I've been reading challenges to the Hot Spot Model / Mantle Plume theory that has been used to calculate all kinds of plate motions. See: Hamilton, W. B., 2003, An Alternative Earth, GSA Today, Vol. 13, No.11, p.4 A FEW AFTERTHOUGHTS: I do not include myself in the previous list of brilliant scientists. As I've said before, I'm just a curious field geolgist with thoughts of my own. I've posted some of them here for all to see. Do what you want with them. Jacob, I did take insult at the insinuation of plaigerism. Yes, credit must be given where credit is due. This moral pervades the stories I have outlined. That and the esoteric thing set me off. I don't know you well enough to accuse you of being either dogmatic or ellitist. Robert Clark, I think I know what you are on about. I don't agree with you, but I have enjoyed our discussions. I'm not begging for or demanding the data. But I do want to see it. Do the MAESTRO data sets have anything for me? Is it worth the download? But that's another thread I think. I am sad that the JPL website does not not have a "for professional scientists" button on it's toolbar where I can satiate myself in geogeek heaven. I am cautioning scientists everywhere to beware dogma and (overly) esoteric societies. I'm nowhere near as smart as the brilliant scientists in charge of the rovers, or most anyone else posting here for that matter. Yet long ago I was taught that I can learn something from anyone on this planet. That's why I surf the web, talk to people, and read stuff by people I don't agree with. Sure, I need data to separate that which is provable and that which is not. I am a scientist that leaves doors open if the facts are not strong enough to close them. To refuse to keep an open mind, or ear, defeats scientific inquiry. I'm done ranting now (phew!), enjoy your day... "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald ...but then again, F. Scott did go nuts....