5 ms·

I read the paper, I think that this is pseudoscience garbage, in my non-expert opinion. I think the sphericles can be explained geologically, the "growth" of t

I read the paper, I think that this is pseudoscience garbage, in my non-expert opinion. I think the sphericles can be explained geologically, the "growth" of the pebbles is explained, as others have pointed out, by the sand around them being removed and being exposed more. I don't like to do this because I would rather attack the evidence but for context, look at the author's history and other publications on researchgate as /bluenose69 pointed out. Read the wikipedia article on the "Journal of Cosmology". This author has a belief that there is life on Mars, and if it isn't puffballs like this paper, it is lichens, or stomatotites. Or suing NASA to examine a rock that was flipped by the wheel of Opportunity that the rock was alive and moved around. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology

neuah 5y ago
I am also not en expert in this area, but I agree with this assessment. This looks like classic anomaly hunting rather than careful science, but I would love to be proved wrong.
koheripbal 5y ago
I don't know anything about this author, and I don't care. Can we discuss the merits of his claims instead?
- Herodotus38 5y ago
  Ideally that would be best but I wasted my time reading the entire paper because I took the initial upvotes it got as a signal that it was worth reading. I gave two examples above where the authors’ claims are very weak and explained by something that myself and others with an initial reading seems more plausible. If you want to discuss the merits further that is fine but in my opinion it is a waste of time. I think you should post your opinions on the merits of the paper as well, I think, but I'm not certain and I could be wrong, that you'll wish you hadn't read the paper or taken the author seriously because we all have limited time and competing things that we find interesting.
- papito 5y ago
  It's like saying, "The National Enquirer posted pictures of lizard people - we should inspect the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions based on the publication's schlock reputation". It's safe to take this shortcut. The burden of *overwhelming" proof is on the author.
  - ALittleLight 5y ago
    The pictures are posted by NASA and analyzed by this paper. Are you suggesting the photos are fake or altered? I'm also confused as to what evidence you would accept for proof of the claim that there are fungus-like things on Mars, if you don't accept pictures of them.
- panda-giddiness 5y ago
  Trustworthiness is a prerequisite to doing science. If you can't trust the scientist, you can't trust the science – that's why academic careers end when scientists are discovered falsifying results. Further, scientific claims should be evaluated by scientists, not laymen. Since this person isn't even a scientist, actual scientists needn't deign to evaluate these claims.

neuah 5y ago

I am also not en expert in this area, but I agree with this assessment. This looks like classic anomaly hunting rather than careful science, but I would love to be proved wrong.

koheripbal 5y ago

I don't know anything about this author, and I don't care. Can we discuss the merits of his claims instead?

Herodotus38 5y ago
Ideally that would be best but I wasted my time reading the entire paper because I took the initial upvotes it got as a signal that it was worth reading. I gave two examples above where the authors’ claims are very weak and explained by something that myself and others with an initial reading seems more plausible. If you want to discuss the merits further that is fine but in my opinion it is a waste of time. I think you should post your opinions on the merits of the paper as well, I think, but I'm not certain and I could be wrong, that you'll wish you hadn't read the paper or taken the author seriously because we all have limited time and competing things that we find interesting.
papito 5y ago
It's like saying, "The National Enquirer posted pictures of lizard people - we should inspect the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions based on the publication's schlock reputation". It's safe to take this shortcut. The burden of *overwhelming" proof is on the author.
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  The pictures are posted by NASA and analyzed by this paper. Are you suggesting the photos are fake or altered? I'm also confused as to what evidence you would accept for proof of the claim that there are fungus-like things on Mars, if you don't accept pictures of them.
panda-giddiness 5y ago
Trustworthiness is a prerequisite to doing science. If you can't trust the scientist, you can't trust the science – that's why academic careers end when scientists are discovered falsifying results. Further, scientific claims should be evaluated by scientists, not laymen. Since this person isn't even a scientist, actual scientists needn't deign to evaluate these claims.