SUBJECT: THE ANOMALOUS MARTIAN SURFACE                       FILE: UFO3335






_________________________________________________________________

COPY OF LETTER SENT TO IRA FLATOW, PBS SCIENCE EDITOR, ON THE
TOPIC OF A POSSIBLE PROGRAM DISCUSSING UNUSUAL MARTIAN SURFACE
FEATURES. IF YOU SUPPORT THIS IDEA FOR A PROGRAM, PLEASE LET
MR. FLATOW KNOW (70726,537).
_________________________________________________________________


                                   Sonoma State University
                                   Department of Philosophy
                                   Rohnert Park, CA 94928
                                       (707) 664-2163


Ira Flatow (By E-Mail)                              10-16-92
Dear Mr. Flatow,

This is a follow-up to my letter of last week discussing the manner in
which the questions raised by anomalous Martian surface features might
serve as a focus for a program discussion on scientific methodology in
general and SETI methodology  in particular, bringing into view the
related issues of the ethic of scientific epistemology, and the ethical
obligation of the scientific community to follow up on research that may
have great social importance. The controversy surrounding the Martian
anomalies offers a unique opportunity to bring a number of issues
regarding the nature of science to a public forum. Here I want to fill in
the details of the sequence of topics that might be brought up in such a
discussion. I will list the topics in the form of a series of interlocking
questions.

1. What methods were used (i.e., by Torun) to develop the data upon
which the hypothesis of artificial origin is based?

2.  What are the scientific objections, if any, that might be leveled
against those methods?

3. If the objections are ones that can be resolved by research,
particularly by efforts to duplicate the data through  independent
measurements, is it a violation of scientific ethic for the scientific
community not to engage in this effort?

4. If the objections are in fact eliminated by independent measurements,
and the original results are confirmed, to what degree do these results
support the hypothesis of artificial origin?

5. If the hypothesis is strongly supported by the independently
confirmed data, what is the social, political, and cultural importance of
the hypothesis, should it turn out to be verified?

6. If the hypothesis is determined to be of great social, political, and
cultural significance, does the scientific community have an ethical
obligation to society to seek verification of the hypothesis by direct
observation (through the Mars Observer mission and possible future
missions)?


Given this sequence of questions, I will set out below a summary of the
factors that might enter into each step, and that could potentially be
brought out either (briefly) in a single discussion or (at length) in a
series of discussions. I will follow the order of the questions listed
above  in this expansion of the topic. (Please note that some of the
details below are based upon my current understanding and may not be
entirely accurate.)

A. What methods were used (i.e., by Torun) to develop the data upon
which the hypothesis of artificial origin is based?

 (1) NASA Viking data tapes were enhanced for detail by Dr. Mark
 Carlotto of the Analytic Sciences Corporation in Reading, MA,
 using state-of-the-art algorithms. (2) An orthographic projection of
 the original Viking frame was obtained from the National Space
 Sciences Data Center to ensure measurement accuracy. (3) The
 orthographic image was compared with the Carlotto enhancement to
 confirm the accuracy of the latter. (4) Inferences were made
 regarding the full outline of the structure, based upon visible edges
 and corners. (4) the precise latitude of the structure, at its (inferred)
 apex, was revised from an original measurement by means of a new
 analysis of Viking Orbiter navigation information carried out for
 NASA by Merton Davies of the RAND Corporation. (5)
 Geomorphological evaluation of the structure was carried out based
 upon its inferred original geometry in comparison with current
 understanding of the regional geology as represented in professional
 papers and books on the topic. (6) Measurements of the internal
 angles of the structure, their mathematical relations, and projections
 of important lines outward to other anomalous features, as well as
 lines of latitude drawn through corners and the apex, were studied
 for their possible mathematical significance.

B. What are the scientific objections, if any, that might be leveled
against those methods?

 How reliable are the Carlotto imaging procedures and the
 latitude/longitude grid? What is the legitimacy of the inferential
 reconstruction of the figure? Have all geological explanations been
 explored? A casual inspection of the full frame 70A11, for example,
 gives the impression that the D&M pyramid, as well as the
 polyhedral group of features that have been considered anomalous
 called "the city," are situated among a multitude of projecting natural
 features in a manner that makes them appear as "of a kind" with
 those features. In particular, "the city" looks like the northeast end of
 a natural chain of similar projections (with the single exception of
 the feature called "the fort"). What has been done to compare and
 differentiate these obviously natural features from the ones in
 question? Precise measurements of the geometry of these landforms,
 carried out in the same manner as those used to measure the D&M
 pyramid, and subsequent comparative geomorphological evaluations,
 are called for. (In the entire discussion to date I have never seen this
 crucial comparison made.)

C. If the objections are ones that can be resolved by research,
particularly by efforts to duplicate the data through  independent
measurements, is it a violation of scientific ethic for the scientific
community not to engage in this effort?

  It is common in evaluating inductive reasoning to acknowledge the
 weight carried by authority: that is, the testimony of experts in a
 field does add to the probability of the conclusion. Here we are
 dealing with data obtained by experienced professionals in
 responsible institutions (Carlotto, Torun, Davies, and even NASA),
 not with  guesses of amateurs. This increases the probability that the
 results obtained would hold up if attempts were made to duplicate
 them by other trained professionals. There is no procedure here,
 furthermore, that could not be tested by attempts at duplicating the
 results by independent experts. In particular, the reliability of
 Torun's reconstruction of the full perimeter of the D&M pyramid
 can be measured against standard expertise in evaluation of satellite
 reconnaissance photos and cartographic methodology in general.  A
 further question is this: can the geomorphological evaluation be
 made to apply even without the inferential reconstruction, or does it
 collapse altogether once the inferential reconstruction is questioned?
 Are the angles and measurements in the unreconstructed figure
 significant on their own, or meaningless?

 Given the tentative reliability of the results as indicated by the very
 high qualifications of the researchers, and the fact that those results
 can be easily tested by the application of known methods by
 independent investigators, it is a violation of scientific ethics not to
 attempt duplication of the results for the following reason:
 duplication of results is one of the primary methodologies of
 scientific epistemology. If a result cannot be duplicated by other
 researchers, it loses its legitimacy. If at least some other researchers
 who are in a position to contribute refuse to do so, they are in effect
 closing the door on scientific methodology. This, of course, does not
 mean that all scientists must always attempt to duplicate the results
 of all other scientists. It does mean that responsible institutions or
 laboratories with capabilities in the field in question have an ongoing
 responsibility to survey significant data in that field and to be
 responsive to the need for independent verification prior to accepting
 or dismissing hypotheses based upon that data. (An example of
 scientific responsiveness to an important claim is the recent furor
 over "cold fusion" in which the ultimate discrediting of the claims of
 the original researchers was due to failure to duplicate their results.
 Many members of the scientific community, internationally,
 participated in attempting to duplicate the original research.)

D. If the objections are in fact eliminated by independent measurements,
and the original results are confirmed, to what degree do these results
support the hypothesis of artificial origin?

 This question breaks down into archeological, geological, and SETI
 issues. One archeologist, Professor James F. Strange of the
 University of South Florida at Tampa, has commented in a letter of
 March 17, 1989 to Richard Hoagland that from the archeological
 point of view the data is sufficient to support the formulation of an
 hypothesis of artificial origin to be tested by direct (automated or
 manned mission) observation, including eventually "test by
 excavation." This viewpoint, of course, would be strongly supported
 if the geological evaluation of the features (see B above) shows a
 significant difference between the features in question and the
 surrounding landforms.

 The final result of Torun's analysis of the D&M pyramid was a set
 of mathematically significant numbers with a high degree of
 redundancy, having logical implications that appear to relate to the
 geometry of circumscribed polyhedra and possibly to the dynamics
 of planetary formation . The problem of the application of SETI
 methodology to the data produced by Torun's analysis is an
 especially interesting one. Hoagland and Torun cite a number of
 discussions of possible modes of encoding messages to (or from)
 extrasolar civilizations, including an early suggestion by Gauss using
 the geometry of circumscribed polyhedra, the manner  of
 encodement that appears to exist at Cydonia. Are there any parallels
 between the assumptions used to develop the pioneer mission's
 message plaque and the geometrical data at Cydonia? Are there any
 analogues to the program for filtering "information" from "noise" in
 radio signals that could be applied to the interpretation of signals
 embodied in architectural geometry? Input from SETI specialists,
 e.g. Carl Sagan, would be of considerable interest here. I would like
 to see a full conversation between Sagan and Torun on the question
 of whether an extraterrestrial message might be encoded in the
 manner found through the geometric measurements of the D&M
 pyramid and surrounding features.

E. If the hypothesis is strongly supported by the independently
confirmed data, what is the social, political, and cultural importance of
the hypothesis, should it turn out to be verified?

 The question of the social, political, and cultural importance of the
 hypothesis of artificial construction is a challenging one. Are
 physical scientists, astronomers, etc., really qualified to evaluate such
 a question? Probably not. If not, who is? If determination of the
 importance of obtaining further data through the Mars Observer
 mission depends upon evaluation of the social importance of the
 hypothesis, who should shoulder the responsibility of making that
 determination? Is it an abdication of responsibility to leave such
 determination to physical scientists and engineers? At the very least,
 anthropology and psychology are essential elements of such an
 evaluation, and I would argue that a representative of the field of
 philosophy in approaching this issue is an absolute necessity. What
 is the attitude of NASA administration toward recommendations
 from such fields as anthropology, psychology, and philosophy? Does
 the intrusion of potential E.T. data into the otherwise "objective"
 field of physics and astronomy create a perceived threat to the
 autonomy of the NASA organization? If so, what can be done to
 generate communication between these branches of science? Is it
 possible that even in the legitimized SETI project (the one currently
 underway), the conceptual structure has been limited by the absence
 of input from other fields?

 What about political considerations? In many motion pictures such
 as E.T., Starman, Iceman, etc, it is the fashion to depict
 governmental and scientific organizations as irrationally hostile to
 any evidence of alien existence usually bent on killing the alien and
 eradicating any evidence of its existence. Is this an accurate
 depiction, and could such attitudes be invoked in the current
 situation? If so, why? Would confirmation of the existence of
 extraterrestrial intelligence unleash some form of destructive
 psychological force upon society? Is the acceptibility of SETI
 exploration outside the solar system and the resistance to SETI
 involvement within the solar system based upon the mitigation of
 this psychological effect that would be produced by the "distance"
 (and therefore, still in some sense the unreality) of signals from the
 stars? Does the general public have a right to know truths of such
 magnitude, or is there a point where the discoveries of science have
 so vast an impact upon the social fabric that government is not
 wrong to suppress them?

F. If the hypothesis is determined to be of great social, political, and
cultural significance, does the scientific community have an ethical
obligation to society to seek verification of the hypothesis by direct
observation (through the Mars Observer mission and possible future
missions)?

 I have heard the opinion voiced that NASA cannot afford to admit
 to an active interest in investigating the anomalous features on Mars
 because to do so would threaten congressional support for missions
 to Mars. Is this true? What is the relationship of NASA to the
 scientific community in general (on the one hand) and to
 government (on the other)? As SETI progresses, whether on an
 interstellar or interplanetary basis, is there a need for development of
 a new sense of the ethics of discovery that includes government
 policy vis-a-vis governmentally supported research institutions? To
 what degree should the scientific community outside of NASA
 communicate a nonpolitical ethic of discovery to the committees and
 individuals within NASA?


I trust that this sketch may give you a better idea of the kind of
conversation I would like to see generated on this topic.

Best Wishes,

Stan McDaniel
Professor of Philosophy
Sonoma State University
CS ID# 75320,3666

cc: Erol Torun, Richard Hoagland, James F. Strange, Compuserve
ISSUES forum, Compuserve Space Forum, and other interested
parties.



*********************************************************************
* -------->>> THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo <<<------- *
*********************************************************************

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.altexxanet.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.