Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to re: I'd fear to tread the surface of Mars too!

re: I'd fear to tread the surface of Mars too!
Michael Gmirkin — (archived)

Don'tget me wrong, I understand where you're coming from. However, you talk about nobody gets a free pass. I'd assert that in that vein nobody gets a free pass to be rude and dismissive. Respect doesnt' equate to a pass for dismissiveness.

As to the "when in Rome" argument, tourists are tourists wherever they go, and most people realize that and at least treat them with some level of respect without being dismissive, IE giving them the time of day.

But, I've already said my piece on that.

It's funny, but I think you were actually being nicer than you had to be calling the theory sub-fringe, or based somewhat more on reality. I realize it's fringe. You can say it. I've read enough fringe to know what's fringe, what's not fringe, and this does fall into the fringe category. IE, not widely accepted by mainstream academia (YET, in my opinion, but my opinion is neither here nor there.

I see where you're coming from too on the dismissivity I've exhibited toward standard theory. However, I might add a slightly finer grain of detail insofar as I've basically said, "I'm open to suggestion." IE, if someone wants to talk and discuss the pros/cons of one model over another, I'm all for it. I think good things come from those conversations. As I've said, I'm also getting up to speed, and part of that "getting up to speed" DOES, believe it or not, include reading at least a little current theory, as it relates to or denies what I'm looking at. And I've also said that I'm "unconvinced" by current theory. Not so much rejecting it as simply seeing some theortical problems I haven't yet seen a good "standard model" solution for yet, and hving ideas of WHY the standard model might not be right. Now, maybe that's a lack of reading on my part, but maybe that's a lack of an actual answer in the standard understanding?

I also don'tthink there is "absolute autority" in the sciences. Certainly there's "consensus" but consensus doesn't equate to "fact." At one time there was consensus that the world was flat, that "rocks in space" were impossible, and that fire, wind, water, and earth were the primary constituents of all things.

As you say, I try to be neither a follower nor a knee-jerk disputant, stay the middle course and keep your eyes, ears, and mind open. You pretty much took the description of my ethic out of my mouth. My preference is to read as many source materials as I can and come to my own conclusions. Sometimes I side with consensus. Sometimes consensus confounds me and is simply "wacky" and unacceptable. Trust me, my eyes and ears are open and my understanding is evolving on a daily basis. I look forward to "constructive" criticism or discussions from Nick or whoever else wants to hold debate. Obviously this isn't the end-all-be-all forum, but you might say it looks like a great pleace to "talk amongst the stars." As it were.

Cheers,
~Michael

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (86 posts)