Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God...
Hebrews 11:3
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, scientists like to say.
One smelly molecule is not enough to claim life.
Most announcements about possible life come and go like bright meteors that make a brief flash and are quickly forgotten.
The current flashy story buzzing around the Big Science News concerns a putative biomarker in the clouds of Venus. This time, though, the believers are saying that the researchers tried really hard to rule out non-biological causes. One of them concludes, with Sherlock Holmes, that “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” But is that the case? There are always unknown unknowns that can mislead experts.
The focus is on the compound phosphine (PH3), a smelly, explosive, poisonous gas (PubChem) found in rotting fish and penguin poop.
As far as scientists believe now, it only is produced by bacteria and biological processes. It also oxidizes fairly quickly, so to find significant amounts in the cloud tops of Venus, there must be a source that replenishes it constantly.
But Venus is a complex planet with strange chemistry and lots of heat and possibly volcanic energy. Who knows what is going on there?
Leah Crane uses a titillating headline with the power of suggestion. Up goes the perhapsimaybecouldness index: “There are no known non-biological mechanisms of making the gas on Venus, so it may be being produced by alien microbes.” Breathlessly, she ups the ante:
Venus: could it really harbor life? New study springs a surprise
(The Conversation). One would hope that astronomer Monica Grady, looking at this claim from the outside, would bring some epistemic modesty to the breathless media mob. She knows that a similar claim was made about Mars. But she understands how the bio-astrology game is played. To find out if there is life on [name planetary body], we need more funding!
The phosphine measurements should motivate research to learn about unknown chemical pathways that produce phosphine. Letzter quotes one scientist who says, “the photochemistry of Venusian cloud droplets is almost completely unknown.”
The proper response by scientists, then, should be to learn about phosphine and run experiments in the lab in Venus-like conditions, instead of running to the press with teasers about Venusians. Doing it to get funding for space missions is disingenuous.
Hebrews 11:3
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, scientists like to say.
One smelly molecule is not enough to claim life.
The whole business of astrobiology
is to find life in space.
Without the bio, it’s just astrology.
Most announcements about possible life come and go like bright meteors that make a brief flash and are quickly forgotten.
The current flashy story buzzing around the Big Science News concerns a putative biomarker in the clouds of Venus. This time, though, the believers are saying that the researchers tried really hard to rule out non-biological causes. One of them concludes, with Sherlock Holmes, that “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” But is that the case? There are always unknown unknowns that can mislead experts.
The focus is on the compound phosphine (PH3), a smelly, explosive, poisonous gas (PubChem) found in rotting fish and penguin poop.
As far as scientists believe now, it only is produced by bacteria and biological processes. It also oxidizes fairly quickly, so to find significant amounts in the cloud tops of Venus, there must be a source that replenishes it constantly.
But Venus is a complex planet with strange chemistry and lots of heat and possibly volcanic energy. Who knows what is going on there?
Leah Crane uses a titillating headline with the power of suggestion. Up goes the perhapsimaybecouldness index: “There are no known non-biological mechanisms of making the gas on Venus, so it may be being produced by alien microbes.” Breathlessly, she ups the ante:
Only two scenarios remain: either there is something going on in Venus’ clouds that we don’t understand, or whatever is producing all that phosphine is alive.
“It’s basically either not a big deal, or we just found Venusians and that’s incredible,” says Sousa-Silva. “The fact that it’s even a possibility is really breathtaking to me.”
It’s not true that “only two scenarios remain.” Philosophers of science can prove that for any data set, there are an infinite number of theories able to explain it. Scientists might respond that only two are reasonable. But how reasonable is it to theorize that bacteria arose by chance within the toxic clouds of a hellish planet? That idea should be ruled out of court from the start.
Venus: could it really harbor life? New study springs a surprise
The presence of methane as a biosignature in Mars’ atmosphere is still hotly debated. It may be that astrobiologists searching for life beyond Earth now have an additional atmospheric biosignature about which to argue.
The European Space Agency is currently considering a mission to Venus that would determine its geological and tectonic history, including observation of potential volcanic gases. This would yield a better idea of the species that are added to Venus’ atmosphere. The new study should boost the case for selection of the mission.
The phosphine measurements should motivate research to learn about unknown chemical pathways that produce phosphine. Letzter quotes one scientist who says, “the photochemistry of Venusian cloud droplets is almost completely unknown.”
The proper response by scientists, then, should be to learn about phosphine and run experiments in the lab in Venus-like conditions, instead of running to the press with teasers about Venusians. Doing it to get funding for space missions is disingenuous.
Scientists used to value “epistemic modesty,” which means that conclusions or suggestions should never outrun data. In the fields that concern origins, that value has been tossed to the wind."
CEH
