NASA wants to control the conversation surrounding the search for ET
A team of US government scientists working with NASA recently published a science article outlining a new "framework" for reporting scientific findings in the search for extraterrestrial life.
The proposed guidance created a “confidence scale” to “set reasonable expectations” about NASA's efforts to find evidence for alien life.
According to the team's article:
A search for evidence like this is often designed as an overarching proposition: either a mission returns conclusive evidence of life or it has fallen short of its goal. The bold nature of this framework is a major threat to the overall effort (sic) by building impractical high expectations in its early stages.
In front: Wow! What's a good idea? All scientists on Earth should definitely carry out unbiased scientific analysis, communicate the results clearly, and ensure that any assertions or observations made during the study able to be proved and repeated.
But… uh… I'm pretty sure that's covered under the scientific approach and peer review.
(Related: How to read a scientific research paper)
Here's an example: Let's say I'm claiming I did a cold fusion. I can't just call the president of the USA and say "Hey Joe, look at it: I solved all your energy problems. ”
I need confirmation I have created a cold fusion. I have to write the research, explain the math, present it using it, and then - this is the important part - other scientists have to review my reproducible work.
Background: It is not difficult for astrobiologists and astronomers to codify their experimental conclusions scientifically.
It may be difficult to know the importance of scientific discovery, but NASA should be engaged in the pursuit of science, not determining how everyone should interpret it. .
The article goes on to address the notion of inappropriate reporting of scientific discovery:
It reduces science that progresses along the way but lacks definitive life-finding, and there is a danger that public confidence will be eroded if life-finding reports are later revealed that they are ambiguous or erroneous.
Indeed, history contains many claims about the discovery of life that were later wrong or dubious when considered in purely bilingual terms. If, instead, we repeat the search for life as a progressive endeavor (sic), we present the value of ideas that are contextual or suggestive but not definitive and emphasize that a false start and a dead end are an expected part of a healthy scientific process.
To what extent could misinterpretation of the scientific rigor of real science diminish? What the average person knows or does not know about finding a life outside the country is largely in the grand scheme of discovery.
Moreover, there is no case of anti - science people out there threatening to deploy NASA money unless it starts searching for monsters. So far, literally no scientific any evidence of alienation. It's been that way since the beginning of recorded history and, yet, people in the US believe in monsters more now than ever before.
So unless NASA is trying all our discouragement against believing in ET…
This is an exercise in controlling the conversation about scientific research for alien life. The main concerns outlined in the article have nothing to do with ET detection.
To quickly add: NASA knows how to do science. It is worrying how you, I, and the rest of the non - NASA community see and interpret the results of these scientific endeavors.
Conversely, there are some positives (for nationals) about this approach. By coding exactly what the US government is making up as "mediocre" science and what it has proven to be the eureka era, it gives tech journalists and the scientists they conducting interviews is a common reason for providing a U.S. government permitted view.
On the other hand, this is how democracy dies.
No government should try to control the statement of scientific achievement. That is why research papers. If NASA wanted to advance guidance for the state scientists regarding scientific reporting, it should have published an internal memorandum.
The fact that a team including NASA's Chief Scientist worked on a paper that tries to deal with the possible damage done by scientists and journalists not reporting government decisions to satisfaction is a matter of great concern.
Quick take: NASA shapes this argument around the idea that "our generation could be the one to find evidence of life on Earth".
But the main point of this paper is to dismiss the difficulties of controlling public opinion on what constitutes scientific and non - scientific discoveries.
Who is it? Should we be particularly careful about hyperbole? Or should we open research papers with the idea that we can “truly” find aliens in our own lives?
The same government that claims to have hidden "UFO" scenes for decades and says Iraq's weapons of mass destruction wants to create a set of rules for scientists and journalists to follow when they report on their research.
Thank you, but no thanks to NASA. I think the physics and astronomy communities can decide for themselves the importance of a particular scientific discovery.
If NASA wants to control the statement when it comes to pursuing ET, it must encourage their scientists to use the scientific method, to publish results in unpaid public journals, and to accept the peer review process.
It is an exercise in government propaganda to tell the rest of us how we should interpret and understand scientific research.