3 ms·

> I stopped here. Then why post if you don't understand the material being discussed?

chiefalchemist 4y ago
I posted to say...it's effectively click bait. Entertainment? Pandering to the overly curious? Certain to draw plenty of eyeballs? Yes, yes and YES. It's very simple. He says, the multitudes of experts at NASA concluded they found *nothing*. But then immediately inexplicably uses the word inexplicably*. It was by no means inexplicable. Full stop. Once you falsely buy into that *assumption* you keep reading. Everything that follows is built on that false assumption. Why did you keep reading? Why did you let your bias get the best of you? Or did you hear what you wanted to hear? This is so typical of HN sometimes. * Again, these trips and payload are EXPENSIVE. You don't toss stuff on a rocket for shit & giggles. The author contradicts himself and common rocket-to-Mars sense.
- areoform 4y ago
  He is an expert. He was the principal investigator for the payload! He helped design the experiment. The author and his colleagues worked with NASA. We should follow up our experiments for finding life on other worlds if they give a positive result, even if we think it’s a false positive, because what if we missed out on The Discovery of our species?
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    An expert would need to make a false assumption. Let's just leave it at that.
- BoiledCabbage 4y ago
  Honestly your comment looks even worse now after your attempt at explaining it. If you had read the article you'd understand why. Please don't comment on topics you aren't familiar with and don't understand.
  - chiefalchemist 4y ago
    I didn't keep reading because the author said something that completely lacked credibility. It he was so confident, then why the false assumption? Why not just come up with some other line of thought / argument? But you missed that part. That's not on me. He said it, I didn't. That's not on me. I would have kept reading if my BS detector didn't go off. That's not on me. See?
    - BoiledCabbage 4y ago
      Again you just keep digging. You just posting you being unaware of the answer isn't convincing anyone, because they read the article and understand it. > But you missed that part I didn't miss any part. I read the article so I know why you're wrong. It's really that simple. but you just keep digging... have fun dig away

I posted to say...it's effectively click bait. Entertainment? Pandering to the overly curious? Certain to draw plenty of eyeballs? Yes, yes and YES. It's very simple. He says, the multitudes of experts at NASA concluded they found *nothing*. But then immediately inexplicably uses the word inexplicably*. It was by no means inexplicable. Full stop. Once you falsely buy into that *assumption* you keep reading. Everything that follows is built on that false assumption. Why did you keep reading? Why did you let your bias get the best of you? Or did you hear what you wanted to hear? This is so typical of HN sometimes. * Again, these trips and payload are EXPENSIVE. You don't toss stuff on a rocket for shit & giggles. The author contradicts himself and common rocket-to-Mars sense.

areoform 4y ago
He is an expert. He was the principal investigator for the payload! He helped design the experiment. The author and his colleagues worked with NASA. We should follow up our experiments for finding life on other worlds if they give a positive result, even if we think it’s a false positive, because what if we missed out on The Discovery of our species?
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  An expert would need to make a false assumption. Let's just leave it at that.
BoiledCabbage 4y ago
Honestly your comment looks even worse now after your attempt at explaining it. If you had read the article you'd understand why. Please don't comment on topics you aren't familiar with and don't understand.
- chiefalchemist 4y ago
  I didn't keep reading because the author said something that completely lacked credibility. It he was so confident, then why the false assumption? Why not just come up with some other line of thought / argument? But you missed that part. That's not on me. He said it, I didn't. That's not on me. I would have kept reading if my BS detector didn't go off. That's not on me. See?
  - BoiledCabbage 4y ago
    Again you just keep digging. You just posting you being unaware of the answer isn't convincing anyone, because they read the article and understand it. > But you missed that part I didn't miss any part. I read the article so I know why you're wrong. It's really that simple. but you just keep digging... have fun dig away