3 ms·
Not sure why this was downvoted. First, it could have been written tongue in cheek. Second, this is a perfectly legitimate and admissible explanation, that must
by ngneer 2y ago
Not sure why this was downvoted. First, it could have been written tongue in cheek. Second, this is a perfectly legitimate and admissible explanation, that must be ruled out. Maybe it is very easy or trivial to rule out, as attempted in another comment, but it is important to keep all options open for scientific rigor. I believe the fact that the first scan did not reveal such life is a strong indicator that these organisms were introduced later.
- renewiltord 2y agoI think maybe the first step in this scientific rigor is to read the article. On the other hand, maybe scientific rigor is primarily in the amount of repetition of ideas already dismissed. Perhaps the most rigorous scientists simply repeat the same hypothesis unchanged when another of them finds evidence to dismiss it. I have heard tales of a truly scientific rigorous civilization. Every human there replicates every study. They’re currently confirming that using cutting rocks to tear flesh is advantageous to survival.
- ngneer 2y agoI could not tell by the comment whether the article was read or not. I try to give the benefit of the doubt. Your sarcasm is hilarious, but you are attacking an argument I never made (i.e., strawman).