6 ms·

This is full of ad hominem, rough guesses, non scientific hyperbole, ones persons opinion (the authors, or a person contacted) and colloquialisms and weasel wor

This is full of ad hominem, rough guesses, non scientific hyperbole, ones persons opinion (the authors, or a person contacted) and colloquialisms and weasel words. Please don't assume I believe in panspermia. But this article is likely to be just as rubbish as the original paper. The emotional language the author uses makes me think that this gripe is personal. As in biased. The opposite bias he accuses the original author of. And he keeps, well, saying, why, well... Some examples of the hyperbole: "It’s wrong. Really, really wrong. Way, way, way ridiculously oh-holy-wow-how-could-anyone-publish-this wrong." "[deep breath]" Cynically calling the journal "august" "alarm bells exploded in my head" "not without some merits." (not 'has some merits' but is just short of no merit at all. as in just 'some') "fervent proponent" "Like, really fervent" (did he actually, like, well, write 'like'?) And so on it goes. And on, and on, and on. Like verbal diarrhoea. It really does come across like he has an axe to grind. This kind of writing really doesn't help his point. Do you think this article would pass peer review and be published in a journal? I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they?

mistercow 14y ago
It's a blog post, not a scientific paper, so you best get over the informality. Debunking bad science is a thing that Phil Plait does, so if it sounds like he has an axe to grind, that's why. >I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they? That's called argument from ignorance. It's a fallacy.
- retrogradeorbit 14y ago
  Well then he really needs to clean up his writing style. I think his writing is terrible. If he wants to persuade people to be sceptical of the original paper he'll have a lot more success if he tones down the colloquial attacks. It's just way over the top. Unless it's just preaching to the converted.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    >I think his writing is terrible. OK, that's fine, but he's one of the most popular science bloggers out there, so I doubt he's going to change it.
    - waterlesscloud 14y ago
      Dan Brown is one of the most popular writers on Earth.
      - mistercow 14y ago
        Yes, so what we can certainly say for Dan Brown, if nothing else (and really, there is nothing else), is that his writing style is accessible.
  - cgh 14y ago
    I disagree. I think his writing is light and funny while taking on the important business of debunking crackpots. A serious-minded article would only give the ridiculous Journal of Cosmology credibility.
  - nollidge 14y ago
    > he'll have a lot more success if he tones down the colloquial attacks That you, personally, do not enjoy his writing style implies almost nothing about the preferences of rest of the English-reading humans on this planet.
nodemaker 14y ago
Maybe we have found the evidence, maybe we haven't!
waterlesscloud 14y ago
While reading it I got a distinct sense he's paid by the word.
abraxasz 14y ago
There are some ad hominem attacks, which the author acknowledges by the way. Doesn't mean it's right, but at least he recognizes his possible bias. Putting that aside, he does provide arguments against the article, which you chose to totally ignore. If you want to refute his point of vue, please do discuss the actual arguments. Now, concerning some of your remarks: > Do you think this article would pass peer review and be published in a journal? That's why it was published in slate and not a peer reviewed journal. And that's to the author's credit: if a paper was published every time a crackpotery was exposed, there would be too much noise in scientific journals. > I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. I don't see how refuting a paper using sensible arguments is showing a lack of open mind. What do you suggest? That we all happily accept every piece of crackpotery to show that we have an open mind? > Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they? Well the point of the JOC article was to show that there are diatoms in meteorites. The point of the slate article is to show that the JOC article is of dubious quality, and does not prove what it claims. Let me say it again: the slate paper does NOT say that there aren't diatoms in meteorites, it just says that this has not been proved.
- retrogradeorbit 14y ago
  > If you want to refute his point of vue [sic], please do discuss the actual arguments. Maybe you could summarise them for me. Once all the needless vitriol is removed it couldn't be more than a few lines. I just can't trawl through them without gagging.
  - biot 14y ago
    What about this piece compels you so much that you require others to do your reading comprehension for you? Just move along to something else.
    - retrogradeorbit 14y ago
      I'm not compelled. That was a cynical comment intended to make the point that once all the extra verbosity was removed you could probably fit his points in a very succinct and easy to read article.
trentlott 14y ago
> Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they? There's not a 'maybe'. If you weren't so concerned with the tone of the article and being offended by his personality you'd actually see the meat of the criticisms he makes. These 'papers' would not make it to peer review. Period. The characterization sucks, the samples suck, the analysis sucks. The way to find extraterrestrial diatoms is not wandering around a warm, moist country poking at dirty rocks. You will find life then, but nothing that should be shocking to anybody but Robert Hooke.
- retrogradeorbit 14y ago
  I'm not offended. He's offended. I have no idea about panspermia. But I know his writing is aweful.
  - VMG 14y ago
    > aweful So you're in awe of his writing?
    - retrogradeorbit 14y ago
      Absolutely, I am.
  - trentlott 14y ago
    So style > substance?
DanBC 14y ago
I agree with most of your post. I prefer calmer writing, even when they're destroying stupid claims. I often find calmer writing to be more powerful. Someone yelling "HEY LOOK! THIS IS STUPID!!!" is less effective than just telling me that something is wrong, why it's wrong, and giving me links to real scientists who show it's wrong. But I strongly disagree with your last paragraph. > I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. This little sentence is evil, and I don't say that lightly. Creationism is taught in school science lessons alongside evolution because "we need to teach both sides", we need to 'keep an open mind' - even though evolution is a very strong theory and creationism is bollocks. There are many other similar examples of truth being harmed in the name of 'open mindedness'. But it's important to realise that scientists do keep an open mind. Any belief will change if the evidence is strong enough. For some things we have some math to predict something and some weak experimental research showing it - for those things you'd just need better math and better experimental evidence and a nice description of how it fits in with everything else. > Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they? You're right, no-one really knows. But that's an excellent reason to be very very cautious when making claims. Start small and build the case, don't just announce that extra-terrestrial life has been found.
- retrogradeorbit 14y ago
  I can see your point. I didn't really consider this because I come from a country where creationism isn't, and wouldn't ever be taught in a science class. I guess I am a little cynical because I work in a science research lab (as a technician) and a few of the scientists are close minded, beginning with their conclusion and tailoring things to fit. These ones are very political and most concerned with putting their names on other peoples work. Though that being said, most of them are open minded and thoughtful people. One of them is just amazing and has become my hero as I've watched them continuously fight the good fight against a toxic system that is against them most of the way. I agree with your last sentence. The original paper should not have made such grand claims. When I read the first 'viral' reporting I actually went 'meh' and kind of dismissed it. It was, after all, just one paper, and no doubt we'd see a lot more over time if it were true. After all, rocks are falling from space all the time. But then this response, and more so, peoples defence of this writing, that really got my goat up. It really reminds me of Tim Harford's TED talk on God Complex. I see this complex all around me, while the people displaying it deny it.
vidarh 14y ago
If you weren't so busy being indignant on behalf of a total crackpot, you might have noticed this: "Wickramasinghe is a proponent of the idea of panspermia: the notion that life originated in space and was brought to Earth via meteorites. It’s an interesting idea and not without some merits." The article author does not write off panspermia. It is not panspermia that is the issue. His issue with Wickramasinghe is not his support for panspermia, but that he makes claims that pretty much anything and everything is evidence of panspermia, even when it plainly isn't. He addresses specific issues that raises very substantial doubts about the validity of this specific "research", and further points out that this quality is part for the course for both the journal it was published in and the researchers. He acknowledges his ad hominem, but also points out that when we want to evaluate whether or not to believe in a claim, whether or not the source is reputable is in fact important unless we have the skill and inclination to accurately assess the claims made ourselves. It is reasonable to be extra sceptical of claims made by someone with a history of making claims that turns out to be totally ridiculous and false, in the interest of not wasting time on every crackpot claim out there. If this was a journal article, this would not have been acceptable - if we take the trouble of formally assessing the claims made, then we should do just that and leave the ad hominems out. But this was not a journal article. And for good reason: Not many who would be likely to read the journal articles and have the skill to assess the claim would take these claims seriously in the first place. But a lot of people will have seen the news reports repeating the dubious claims made. Frankly, your comment comes across like someone who has an axe to grind. > I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they? You're probably right. And the article writer seems to mostly agree with you on this: > Having said that, I do think there is life in space, or at least that’s the way to bet. We know there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and we know life on Earth arose almost as soon as conditions on our newly-formed planet were right for it. So I’m confident that, statistically speaking, there is life on other planets, at the very least “primitive” life such as one-celled plants. > > It’s even possible life arose on Mars before it did on Earth and was carried here via meteorite. It’s an interesting idea. But it’s one with a lot of holes in it, the biggest being we have zero evidence of life on Mars. Getting it here is not that big a problem, but then having it live long and prosper is another issue altogether. > > So to me, panspermia is an interesting idea but has no evidence to support it. There are a host of other problems with it as well, but I think the biggest black eye it has right now is the support it gets from both pseudoscience and sloppy science. He is skeptical, but does not rule it out. He does, however, rule out the specific claims made by Wickramasinghe in this instance based on actually evaluating the evidence presented.
pessimizer 14y ago
"personal" != "biased"
arrrg 14y ago
Please don’t use fallacies in that way. They are not automatic game overs and can be part of reasonable arguments. Yes, a warning light should go on in your head when someone uses a fallacy – but they can be very useful shortcuts – and if not presented in isolation, i.e. without any further argument, they are usually not so problematic (and discussions shouldn’t then be derailed by only focusing only on fallacies). When scientists decide how to filter which information to take in they usually always rely – as a first step – on arguments from authority or (if you reverse it) ad-hominems. There is no time to check everything based on its merits. Journals exist to increase efficiency, as a first-defense shit filter. Considering the repute of a journal and the editors involved as a first step makes total sense. Phil Plait is not a biologist. If he wouldn’t write for Slate about stuff like this, he probably would have seen the name of the journal, recognized it as extremely problematic and dismissed the research as most likely bullshit. And that’s that. It’s a perfectly valid approach. So much crap is published every day, there just isn’t enough time to consider everything based on its merits. Even though there really isn’t much of a need in this case, Phil Plait doesn’t stop there and pushes further, presenting some very solid arguments for why this research is bullshit, going even so far as to directly consulting experts in the field. If that’s not thorough (for a non-scientific publication, you know, a blog post) I don’t know what is. Yeah, Phil Plait has a writing style that isn’t for everyone (I’m personally not a huge fan, but I still like him), but really, you are putting style over substance there. All the while you drone on about ad-hominems, only to launch a huge one yourself. You completely ignore his arguments in favor of the writing style. Conclusion: This research is bullshit. Plus, if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out (says Tim Minchin). And Phil Plait has an axe to grind. With bad science. And that it’s bad is something he quite elegantly demonstrates. There is no need to stay perfectly neutral in tone when you discuss obviously bad science.
nollidge 14y ago
"Open-mindedness" does not mean giving undue respect to every dumbass idea that crosses your desk. I think it's actually productive to shame ridiculous ideas in order to encourage skepticism. Also the notion that a blog post should be written in the same style as a scientific journal article is obtuse. EDIT: removed an extra "not"

mistercow 14y ago

It's a blog post, not a scientific paper, so you best get over the informality. Debunking bad science is a thing that Phil Plait does, so if it sounds like he has an axe to grind, that's why. >I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they? That's called argument from ignorance. It's a fallacy.

retrogradeorbit 14y ago
Well then he really needs to clean up his writing style. I think his writing is terrible. If he wants to persuade people to be sceptical of the original paper he'll have a lot more success if he tones down the colloquial attacks. It's just way over the top. Unless it's just preaching to the converted.
- mistercow 14y ago
  >I think his writing is terrible. OK, that's fine, but he's one of the most popular science bloggers out there, so I doubt he's going to change it.
  - waterlesscloud 14y ago
    Dan Brown is one of the most popular writers on Earth.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      Yes, so what we can certainly say for Dan Brown, if nothing else (and really, there is nothing else), is that his writing style is accessible.
- cgh 14y ago
  I disagree. I think his writing is light and funny while taking on the important business of debunking crackpots. A serious-minded article would only give the ridiculous Journal of Cosmology credibility.
- nollidge 14y ago
  > he'll have a lot more success if he tones down the colloquial attacks That you, personally, do not enjoy his writing style implies almost nothing about the preferences of rest of the English-reading humans on this planet.

nodemaker 14y ago

Maybe we have found the evidence, maybe we haven't!

waterlesscloud 14y ago

While reading it I got a distinct sense he's paid by the word.

abraxasz 14y ago

There are some ad hominem attacks, which the author acknowledges by the way. Doesn't mean it's right, but at least he recognizes his possible bias. Putting that aside, he does provide arguments against the article, which you chose to totally ignore. If you want to refute his point of vue, please do discuss the actual arguments. Now, concerning some of your remarks: > Do you think this article would pass peer review and be published in a journal? That's why it was published in slate and not a peer reviewed journal. And that's to the author's credit: if a paper was published every time a crackpotery was exposed, there would be too much noise in scientific journals. > I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. I don't see how refuting a paper using sensible arguments is showing a lack of open mind. What do you suggest? That we all happily accept every piece of crackpotery to show that we have an open mind? > Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they? Well the point of the JOC article was to show that there are diatoms in meteorites. The point of the slate article is to show that the JOC article is of dubious quality, and does not prove what it claims. Let me say it again: the slate paper does NOT say that there aren't diatoms in meteorites, it just says that this has not been proved.

retrogradeorbit 14y ago
> If you want to refute his point of vue [sic], please do discuss the actual arguments. Maybe you could summarise them for me. Once all the needless vitriol is removed it couldn't be more than a few lines. I just can't trawl through them without gagging.
- biot 14y ago
  What about this piece compels you so much that you require others to do your reading comprehension for you? Just move along to something else.
  - retrogradeorbit 14y ago
    I'm not compelled. That was a cynical comment intended to make the point that once all the extra verbosity was removed you could probably fit his points in a very succinct and easy to read article.

trentlott 14y ago

> Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they? There's not a 'maybe'. If you weren't so concerned with the tone of the article and being offended by his personality you'd actually see the meat of the criticisms he makes. These 'papers' would not make it to peer review. Period. The characterization sucks, the samples suck, the analysis sucks. The way to find extraterrestrial diatoms is not wandering around a warm, moist country poking at dirty rocks. You will find life then, but nothing that should be shocking to anybody but Robert Hooke.

retrogradeorbit 14y ago
I'm not offended. He's offended. I have no idea about panspermia. But I know his writing is aweful.
- VMG 14y ago
  > aweful So you're in awe of his writing?
  - retrogradeorbit 14y ago
    Absolutely, I am.
- trentlott 14y ago
  So style > substance?

DanBC 14y ago

I agree with most of your post. I prefer calmer writing, even when they're destroying stupid claims. I often find calmer writing to be more powerful. Someone yelling "HEY LOOK! THIS IS STUPID!!!" is less effective than just telling me that something is wrong, why it's wrong, and giving me links to real scientists who show it's wrong. But I strongly disagree with your last paragraph. > I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. This little sentence is evil, and I don't say that lightly. Creationism is taught in school science lessons alongside evolution because "we need to teach both sides", we need to 'keep an open mind' - even though evolution is a very strong theory and creationism is bollocks. There are many other similar examples of truth being harmed in the name of 'open mindedness'. But it's important to realise that scientists do keep an open mind. Any belief will change if the evidence is strong enough. For some things we have some math to predict something and some weak experimental research showing it - for those things you'd just need better math and better experimental evidence and a nice description of how it fits in with everything else. > Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they? You're right, no-one really knows. But that's an excellent reason to be very very cautious when making claims. Start small and build the case, don't just announce that extra-terrestrial life has been found.

retrogradeorbit 14y ago
I can see your point. I didn't really consider this because I come from a country where creationism isn't, and wouldn't ever be taught in a science class. I guess I am a little cynical because I work in a science research lab (as a technician) and a few of the scientists are close minded, beginning with their conclusion and tailoring things to fit. These ones are very political and most concerned with putting their names on other peoples work. Though that being said, most of them are open minded and thoughtful people. One of them is just amazing and has become my hero as I've watched them continuously fight the good fight against a toxic system that is against them most of the way. I agree with your last sentence. The original paper should not have made such grand claims. When I read the first 'viral' reporting I actually went 'meh' and kind of dismissed it. It was, after all, just one paper, and no doubt we'd see a lot more over time if it were true. After all, rocks are falling from space all the time. But then this response, and more so, peoples defence of this writing, that really got my goat up. It really reminds me of Tim Harford's TED talk on God Complex. I see this complex all around me, while the people displaying it deny it.

vidarh 14y ago

If you weren't so busy being indignant on behalf of a total crackpot, you might have noticed this: "Wickramasinghe is a proponent of the idea of panspermia: the notion that life originated in space and was brought to Earth via meteorites. It’s an interesting idea and not without some merits." The article author does not write off panspermia. It is not panspermia that is the issue. His issue with Wickramasinghe is not his support for panspermia, but that he makes claims that pretty much anything and everything is evidence of panspermia, even when it plainly isn't. He addresses specific issues that raises very substantial doubts about the validity of this specific "research", and further points out that this quality is part for the course for both the journal it was published in and the researchers. He acknowledges his ad hominem, but also points out that when we want to evaluate whether or not to believe in a claim, whether or not the source is reputable is in fact important unless we have the skill and inclination to accurately assess the claims made ourselves. It is reasonable to be extra sceptical of claims made by someone with a history of making claims that turns out to be totally ridiculous and false, in the interest of not wasting time on every crackpot claim out there. If this was a journal article, this would not have been acceptable - if we take the trouble of formally assessing the claims made, then we should do just that and leave the ad hominems out. But this was not a journal article. And for good reason: Not many who would be likely to read the journal articles and have the skill to assess the claim would take these claims seriously in the first place. But a lot of people will have seen the news reports repeating the dubious claims made. Frankly, your comment comes across like someone who has an axe to grind. > I don't know why scientists just can't keep an open mind. Maybe life comes from outer space. Maybe it doesn't. Maybe diatoms are in meteorites. Maybe they aren't. No one really knows, do they? You're probably right. And the article writer seems to mostly agree with you on this: > Having said that, I do think there is life in space, or at least that’s the way to bet. We know there are billions of planets in our galaxy, and we know life on Earth arose almost as soon as conditions on our newly-formed planet were right for it. So I’m confident that, statistically speaking, there is life on other planets, at the very least “primitive” life such as one-celled plants. > > It’s even possible life arose on Mars before it did on Earth and was carried here via meteorite. It’s an interesting idea. But it’s one with a lot of holes in it, the biggest being we have zero evidence of life on Mars. Getting it here is not that big a problem, but then having it live long and prosper is another issue altogether. > > So to me, panspermia is an interesting idea but has no evidence to support it. There are a host of other problems with it as well, but I think the biggest black eye it has right now is the support it gets from both pseudoscience and sloppy science. He is skeptical, but does not rule it out. He does, however, rule out the specific claims made by Wickramasinghe in this instance based on actually evaluating the evidence presented.

pessimizer 14y ago

"personal" != "biased"

arrrg 14y ago

Please don’t use fallacies in that way. They are not automatic game overs and can be part of reasonable arguments. Yes, a warning light should go on in your head when someone uses a fallacy – but they can be very useful shortcuts – and if not presented in isolation, i.e. without any further argument, they are usually not so problematic (and discussions shouldn’t then be derailed by only focusing only on fallacies). When scientists decide how to filter which information to take in they usually always rely – as a first step – on arguments from authority or (if you reverse it) ad-hominems. There is no time to check everything based on its merits. Journals exist to increase efficiency, as a first-defense shit filter. Considering the repute of a journal and the editors involved as a first step makes total sense. Phil Plait is not a biologist. If he wouldn’t write for Slate about stuff like this, he probably would have seen the name of the journal, recognized it as extremely problematic and dismissed the research as most likely bullshit. And that’s that. It’s a perfectly valid approach. So much crap is published every day, there just isn’t enough time to consider everything based on its merits. Even though there really isn’t much of a need in this case, Phil Plait doesn’t stop there and pushes further, presenting some very solid arguments for why this research is bullshit, going even so far as to directly consulting experts in the field. If that’s not thorough (for a non-scientific publication, you know, a blog post) I don’t know what is. Yeah, Phil Plait has a writing style that isn’t for everyone (I’m personally not a huge fan, but I still like him), but really, you are putting style over substance there. All the while you drone on about ad-hominems, only to launch a huge one yourself. You completely ignore his arguments in favor of the writing style. Conclusion: This research is bullshit. Plus, if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out (says Tim Minchin). And Phil Plait has an axe to grind. With bad science. And that it’s bad is something he quite elegantly demonstrates. There is no need to stay perfectly neutral in tone when you discuss obviously bad science.

nollidge 14y ago

"Open-mindedness" does not mean giving undue respect to every dumbass idea that crosses your desk. I think it's actually productive to shame ridiculous ideas in order to encourage skepticism. Also the notion that a blog post should be written in the same style as a scientific journal article is obtuse. EDIT: removed an extra "not"