4 ms·

We've analysed old rocks, both from Mars itself and from meteorites and they are magnetized ... so Mars had a magnetic field, for ~1.5 billion years after it's

We've analysed old rocks, both from Mars itself and from meteorites and they are magnetized ... so Mars had a magnetic field, for ~1.5 billion years after it's formation. We also know that for at least the 1st billion years mars had an ocean. In fact, it was probably covered 100% in water for the larger part of that 1.5 billion years.

jonhohle 3y ago
s/\(Mars had\)/it seems \1/ s/know/think/ When people state things as absolutely true at a cosmic scale that we can’t possibly know with any certainty except what our collectively minimal knowledge allows us to hypothesize, it shuts down discussion, discourages dissent (important in sciences, imho), and taints everything else with suspicion (again, imho, if so-and-so was so certain about thing x we now know is wrong, why should I believe anything they’ve said).
- queuebert 3y ago
  You're ignoring the possibility that the parent commenter is part of a secret time traveling cabal.
- cgriswald 3y ago
  This sort of moralizing is counterproductive, wrong, and dripping with irony when you talk about shutting down discussion. "Idea is only a theory," when talking about science is almost always a misunderstanding of the word theory and a conflation with the words hypothesis or hunch or guess. Mars previously having a magnetic field isn't dogma. It's the best explanation we have for the evidence. It is knowledge. Dissent is more than welcome if it can offer new evidence, prove why the existing explanation is wrong, or better explain the existing evidence. Until then, it is much more correct to say "Mars had" than "Mars didn't have". "It seems" undersells it and is pointless hedging akin to saying "It seems species change over time in response to environmental pressures due to natural selection." > (again, imho, if so-and-so was so certain about thing x we now know is wrong, why should I believe anything they’ve said). Because you're not an irrational loon? Who do you know who has never been certain and wrong about anything? In the case of science, look at the evidence. No one is asking you to believe the boy who cried wolf when he tells you the sky is made of marshmallow.
- icehawk 3y ago
  I'd actually posit that this sort of post shuts down discussion even more. It doesn't provide any sort of useful information that complements or refutes the point in question. It's useless naval-gazing that doesn't actually actually add anything to the conversation-- as there is nothing that we perceive directly, and anyone seriously discussing it should know the limitations of inference.

jonhohle 3y ago

s/\(Mars had\)/it seems \1/ s/know/think/ When people state things as absolutely true at a cosmic scale that we can’t possibly know with any certainty except what our collectively minimal knowledge allows us to hypothesize, it shuts down discussion, discourages dissent (important in sciences, imho), and taints everything else with suspicion (again, imho, if so-and-so was so certain about thing x we now know is wrong, why should I believe anything they’ve said).

queuebert 3y ago
You're ignoring the possibility that the parent commenter is part of a secret time traveling cabal.
cgriswald 3y ago
This sort of moralizing is counterproductive, wrong, and dripping with irony when you talk about shutting down discussion. "Idea is only a theory," when talking about science is almost always a misunderstanding of the word theory and a conflation with the words hypothesis or hunch or guess. Mars previously having a magnetic field isn't dogma. It's the best explanation we have for the evidence. It is knowledge. Dissent is more than welcome if it can offer new evidence, prove why the existing explanation is wrong, or better explain the existing evidence. Until then, it is much more correct to say "Mars had" than "Mars didn't have". "It seems" undersells it and is pointless hedging akin to saying "It seems species change over time in response to environmental pressures due to natural selection." > (again, imho, if so-and-so was so certain about thing x we now know is wrong, why should I believe anything they’ve said). Because you're not an irrational loon? Who do you know who has never been certain and wrong about anything? In the case of science, look at the evidence. No one is asking you to believe the boy who cried wolf when he tells you the sky is made of marshmallow.
icehawk 3y ago
I'd actually posit that this sort of post shuts down discussion even more. It doesn't provide any sort of useful information that complements or refutes the point in question. It's useless naval-gazing that doesn't actually actually add anything to the conversation-- as there is nothing that we perceive directly, and anyone seriously discussing it should know the limitations of inference.