8 ms·

The identified structures look no more nor less "lifelike" than other random bits found in the rock (image is here [1]). As far as I can tell, this evidence do

The identified structures look no more nor less "lifelike" than other random bits found in the rock (image is here [1]). As far as I can tell, this evidence doesn't even begin to scratch at the surface of information needed to demonstrate or even really suggest that these were ever living organisms. The nail in the coffin, for me, is the fact that this is set to be published in the Journal of Cosmology, a publication of questionable repute [2]. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/Polonnaruwa%20meteorite.png https://www.technologyreview.com/sites/default/files/images/... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Cosmology

raverbashing 14y ago
"The nail in the coffin, for me, is the fact that this is set to be published in the Journal of Cosmology, a publication of questionable repute [2]." So it's ok to go Ad Hominem against anything that contradicts our current knowledge? Ok, got it
- carbocation 14y ago
  > So it's ok to go Ad Hominem against anything that contradicts our current knowledge? Ok, got it The whole point of scientific journals is to change our current knowledge, so that's not really a fair criticism of my dismissal. Read even just the Wikipedia article and you'll see that this journal has several issues: (1) the quality of its peer review is questionable; (2) it appears to promote fringe views; (3) it has been widely criticized by the scientific community. So yes, after criticizing the research itself, I also dug around and discovered problems with the journal it was being published in. I don't see anything wrong with doing so. Had the data looked less bogus I probably wouldn't have been suspicious enough to investigate the source.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    "So yes, after criticizing the research itself" Your point was that these features look as similar as other features and hence they should be the same. Now, the given article really reads like a press release more than anything, but I don't remember if the original article had something else on the picture. What I would think is that (but I am not sure) since these are electron microscope pictures, you can get a composition analysis of the sample from the microscope, hence being able to differentiate the features. And no, I'm not taking this research too seriously as well, I just find it funny that some people jump at it and seem to dismiss it at first sight.
- tokenadult 14y ago
  No, it's that an extraordinary claim that would revolutionize our understanding of the universe would be likely to be published in a high-impact journal, if it is backed up by enough evidence to survive review in that journal. When the principal investigator of a study is someone who has to publish in his own journal, http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents11.html http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents11.html (Wickramasinghe is "Executive Editor, Astrobiology" for the Journal of Cosmology) then you can see for yourself a bad sign about the strength of evidence for the paper. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_... for more details on identifying reliable sources. AFTER EDIT: The group blog Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ is an excellent glimpse into the world of scientific publishing, and shows how many low-ranking journals there are that are hard up for content. I think I learned about this interesting blog from another HN participant a year or two ago.
  - raverbashing 14y ago
    The article should stand (or not) on its merits, regardless of the journal of publication (or other medium) Of course I trust Nature more than, let's say "Bob's Journal about science stuff" But sometimes even articles in Nature have been printed elsewhere first, (like a 'beta test' for the article - peer review nevertheless), usually in journals specific from the field (clarification below) The "Identifying reliable sources" page is a Wikipedia policy, it has some good insights, but it is biased towards Wikipedia, see for example "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper" Edit: Yes, journals usually don't accept content published elsewhere, my bad. What happens is that, yes, you can't republish something 100% equal to something published elsewhere. (eg: http://www.ieee.org/documents/top10faq.pdf http://www.ieee.org/documents/top10faq.pdf ) but while the research progresses you provide more detailed papers or focus on different areas of research
    - carbocation 14y ago
      > But sometimes even articles in Nature have been printed elsewhere first, (like a 'beta test' for the article - peer review nevertheless), usually in journals specific from the field. Not true. Republishing already-published work is specifically disallowed by Nature and most high impact journals. Doing so merits a retraction.
- eksith 14y ago
  It doesn't have the same reputation as New Scientist, but I'm taking it with some cautious optimism. I'm still reading the original report to filter through any embellishments etc... While structures alone may not provide conclusive evidence, perhaps the composition will. The name Anil Samaranayake caught my eye, since he's the the director of the Colombo Medical Research Institute.
- trentlott 14y ago
  Their previous paper[1], and will only take about five to ten minutes to read, and gives you a pretty good idea what the level of this "journal" is. Phil Plaitt also has a pretty good critique[2], but if you have the background, reading that paper should be enough to at least make you squint hard at their "science". There's a reason that people don't take the group seriously, and it's not fear from the establishment or whatever nonsense. [1] http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/PolonnaruwaRRRR.pdf http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/PolonnaruwaRRRR.pdf [2] http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_a_meteorite_claims_by_n_c_wickramasinghe_of_diatoms_in_a_meteorite.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_...
- jahewson 14y ago
  It's not an ad hominem to suggest that a piece of unconventional research is unlikely to be correct because it is published in a disreputable journal. Academia is all about reputation, and the standing of various journals. If they had sufficient evidence to back up their claims then they would be on the cover of Nature. Unfortunately for them, actual Science requires peer-reviewed evidence. Publishing in your own journal does not count. It's a huge red flag.
- lutusp 14y ago
  No, that's only a comment on the care taken with the norms of scientific discipline. Anyone can get an astrology paper published, just not in a reputable, refereed journal.
- arrrg 14y ago
  If you are not an expert in the field, it will be very hard if not impossible for you to judge a scientific article on its merits. In that light, looking at where something was published makes total sense. It’s a completely valid mechanism for non-experts to separate the crap from the good stuff. (Even experts, given all the stuff that is published all the time, have no time to read and evaluate everything on its merits. Increasing efficiency by centralizing that task and not forcing every scientist to do it all the time is more or less the purpose of journals.)
radio4fan 14y ago
Absolutely. It would be great it was true, but it's almost certainly not. Images like this are effectively Rorschach tests. Sure, they may look like xenofossils to astrobiologists, but there are no doubt people to whom they look like their grandmother lying in a pool of blood...
- riggins 14y ago
  It would be great it was true Extraterrestrial life would be great? I'm not sure. I think the 2 most likely scenarios are: 1. ET would be far less evolved 2. ET would be far more evolved #1 wouldn't be terribly interesting. So what about #2. What would that be like? Well, we have some relevant experience from planet earth. How do humans view/treat organisms that are far less evolved ... like bugs?
  - ecto 14y ago
    You are assuming that a highly evolved lifeform would act like us humans, barely out of the trees socially and spiritually. You may be right. However there are many people I know that wouldn't hurt a bug. Tangentially, #1 would be incredibly interesting to many people. We (the general public) have no definite indications that we /aren't/ on the only rock in the Universe with life, and #1 would hold great consequences.
    - codeulike 14y ago
      Agreed, #1 would still be earth-shaking. At the moment, we're the only life we know of. Finding evidence of extraterrestial microbes in the same solar system would suggest a much higher probability for life all over the galaxy.
  - tripzilch 14y ago
    Bugs are going to eat us all, one day.
    - cleis 14y ago
      My whole family was in Buenos Aires
bargl 14y ago
I think the biggest thing for me is that it hasn't been verified by multiple studies... I tend to look for a broader acceptance than in one place. Then it's really a debate, this is just a cool finding that needs to be peer reviewed. So I'd say it's too early to pull out the nails or the coffin, it is just an unverified theory right now. Those are a dime a dozen.
tripzilch 14y ago
> published in the Journal of Cosmology, a publication of questionable repute [2]. Well, at least their publications are not behind a paywall, free for download: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845 http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845 so anyone can check the believability of this research themselves!

raverbashing 14y ago

"The nail in the coffin, for me, is the fact that this is set to be published in the Journal of Cosmology, a publication of questionable repute [2]." So it's ok to go Ad Hominem against anything that contradicts our current knowledge? Ok, got it

carbocation 14y ago
> So it's ok to go Ad Hominem against anything that contradicts our current knowledge? Ok, got it The whole point of scientific journals is to change our current knowledge, so that's not really a fair criticism of my dismissal. Read even just the Wikipedia article and you'll see that this journal has several issues: (1) the quality of its peer review is questionable; (2) it appears to promote fringe views; (3) it has been widely criticized by the scientific community. So yes, after criticizing the research itself, I also dug around and discovered problems with the journal it was being published in. I don't see anything wrong with doing so. Had the data looked less bogus I probably wouldn't have been suspicious enough to investigate the source.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  "So yes, after criticizing the research itself" Your point was that these features look as similar as other features and hence they should be the same. Now, the given article really reads like a press release more than anything, but I don't remember if the original article had something else on the picture. What I would think is that (but I am not sure) since these are electron microscope pictures, you can get a composition analysis of the sample from the microscope, hence being able to differentiate the features. And no, I'm not taking this research too seriously as well, I just find it funny that some people jump at it and seem to dismiss it at first sight.
tokenadult 14y ago
No, it's that an extraordinary claim that would revolutionize our understanding of the universe would be likely to be published in a high-impact journal, if it is backed up by enough evidence to survive review in that journal. When the principal investigator of a study is someone who has to publish in his own journal, http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents11.html http://journalofcosmology.com/Contents11.html (Wickramasinghe is "Executive Editor, Astrobiology" for the Journal of Cosmology) then you can see for yourself a bad sign about the strength of evidence for the paper. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_... for more details on identifying reliable sources. AFTER EDIT: The group blog Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ is an excellent glimpse into the world of scientific publishing, and shows how many low-ranking journals there are that are hard up for content. I think I learned about this interesting blog from another HN participant a year or two ago.
- raverbashing 14y ago
  The article should stand (or not) on its merits, regardless of the journal of publication (or other medium) Of course I trust Nature more than, let's say "Bob's Journal about science stuff" But sometimes even articles in Nature have been printed elsewhere first, (like a 'beta test' for the article - peer review nevertheless), usually in journals specific from the field (clarification below) The "Identifying reliable sources" page is a Wikipedia policy, it has some good insights, but it is biased towards Wikipedia, see for example "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper" Edit: Yes, journals usually don't accept content published elsewhere, my bad. What happens is that, yes, you can't republish something 100% equal to something published elsewhere. (eg: http://www.ieee.org/documents/top10faq.pdf http://www.ieee.org/documents/top10faq.pdf ) but while the research progresses you provide more detailed papers or focus on different areas of research
  - carbocation 14y ago
    > But sometimes even articles in Nature have been printed elsewhere first, (like a 'beta test' for the article - peer review nevertheless), usually in journals specific from the field. Not true. Republishing already-published work is specifically disallowed by Nature and most high impact journals. Doing so merits a retraction.
eksith 14y ago
It doesn't have the same reputation as New Scientist, but I'm taking it with some cautious optimism. I'm still reading the original report to filter through any embellishments etc... While structures alone may not provide conclusive evidence, perhaps the composition will. The name Anil Samaranayake caught my eye, since he's the the director of the Colombo Medical Research Institute.
trentlott 14y ago
Their previous paper[1], and will only take about five to ten minutes to read, and gives you a pretty good idea what the level of this "journal" is. Phil Plaitt also has a pretty good critique[2], but if you have the background, reading that paper should be enough to at least make you squint hard at their "science". There's a reason that people don't take the group seriously, and it's not fear from the establishment or whatever nonsense. [1] http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/PolonnaruwaRRRR.pdf http://journalofcosmology.com/JOC21/PolonnaruwaRRRR.pdf [2] http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_a_meteorite_claims_by_n_c_wickramasinghe_of_diatoms_in_a_meteorite.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/15/life_in_...
jahewson 14y ago
It's not an ad hominem to suggest that a piece of unconventional research is unlikely to be correct because it is published in a disreputable journal. Academia is all about reputation, and the standing of various journals. If they had sufficient evidence to back up their claims then they would be on the cover of Nature. Unfortunately for them, actual Science requires peer-reviewed evidence. Publishing in your own journal does not count. It's a huge red flag.
lutusp 14y ago
No, that's only a comment on the care taken with the norms of scientific discipline. Anyone can get an astrology paper published, just not in a reputable, refereed journal.
arrrg 14y ago
If you are not an expert in the field, it will be very hard if not impossible for you to judge a scientific article on its merits. In that light, looking at where something was published makes total sense. It’s a completely valid mechanism for non-experts to separate the crap from the good stuff. (Even experts, given all the stuff that is published all the time, have no time to read and evaluate everything on its merits. Increasing efficiency by centralizing that task and not forcing every scientist to do it all the time is more or less the purpose of journals.)

radio4fan 14y ago

Absolutely. It would be great it was true, but it's almost certainly not. Images like this are effectively Rorschach tests. Sure, they may look like xenofossils to astrobiologists, but there are no doubt people to whom they look like their grandmother lying in a pool of blood...

riggins 14y ago
It would be great it was true Extraterrestrial life would be great? I'm not sure. I think the 2 most likely scenarios are: 1. ET would be far less evolved 2. ET would be far more evolved #1 wouldn't be terribly interesting. So what about #2. What would that be like? Well, we have some relevant experience from planet earth. How do humans view/treat organisms that are far less evolved ... like bugs?
- ecto 14y ago
  You are assuming that a highly evolved lifeform would act like us humans, barely out of the trees socially and spiritually. You may be right. However there are many people I know that wouldn't hurt a bug. Tangentially, #1 would be incredibly interesting to many people. We (the general public) have no definite indications that we /aren't/ on the only rock in the Universe with life, and #1 would hold great consequences.
  - codeulike 14y ago
    Agreed, #1 would still be earth-shaking. At the moment, we're the only life we know of. Finding evidence of extraterrestial microbes in the same solar system would suggest a much higher probability for life all over the galaxy.
- tripzilch 14y ago
  Bugs are going to eat us all, one day.
  - cleis 14y ago
    My whole family was in Buenos Aires

bargl 14y ago

I think the biggest thing for me is that it hasn't been verified by multiple studies... I tend to look for a broader acceptance than in one place. Then it's really a debate, this is just a cool finding that needs to be peer reviewed. So I'd say it's too early to pull out the nails or the coffin, it is just an unverified theory right now. Those are a dime a dozen.

tripzilch 14y ago

> published in the Journal of Cosmology, a publication of questionable repute [2]. Well, at least their publications are not behind a paywall, free for download: http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845 http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.1845 so anyone can check the believability of this research themselves!