4 ms·
> "...It provides conclusions that people so badly want to prove true that they will look for any evidence, however meager, to bolster their arguments." You ar
by knighthack 2y ago
> "...It provides conclusions that people so badly want to prove true that they will look for any evidence, however meager, to bolster their arguments."
You argue from the position that Martians 'must not be real'.
Why is your conclusion any better than those who argue that Martians could be real?
Science works upon evidence. If so:
a) there is some evidence to support the existence of prior life on Mars;
b) it is not the scientific case that life on Mars is impossible/implausible
So why do you so strongly hold on to your own dogma, and chastise the conclusions of others as mere 'fantasy' and 'sci-fi'? You are no smarter than everyone else, by merely being contrarian.
- CardenB 2y agoyou are shifting the burden of proof and failing to make a good argument here.
- knighthack 2y agoYour statement make no sense. I cite how science permits plausibility upon evidence. This is in contrast to OP's wishful dogma, where anything not presently known must be fantasy/sci-based and implausible - which is not how science works.
- throw4847285 2y agoI didn't say Martians can't be real. I said the evidence that I've encountered (obviously limited by the fact that I'm not a subject matter expert) is insufficient to overcome the threshold of doubt. I then theorized (uncharitably, I'll admit) that many people are predisposed to believe in martians because they've read too much science fiction stories which themselves are actually just metaphors for conditions of life here on Earth. I then made fun of these people, lightly I think.