No Going Back
The timeless
admonishment,
"Be careful what you wish for," is knocking at
the front-door of the noble house of
science.
Once, there was New Age
mumbo-jumbo, Erich
von Däniken quackery, sensationalist National
Enquirer
claims, American students with abysmal
test-scores in their knowledge of
science (with students in other countries
scoring much higher), a growth in
religious
fundamentalism and the pseudoscience of Creationism,
as well as the
perennial claims about Atlantis,
UFOs,
and
angels, ...and many wished that
science would somehow become popular,
hip, cool, or at least better understood
by average Americans. Well, the
media has recently deluged us with films,
television shows, books, magazine
articles,
newspaper accounts, and endless
hours of radio talk-shows, about
..."science,"
but much unscientific speculation
(read: silliness) has come along for the
ride. There's no going back, practically
speaking, and no one should want to.
Though it's
beyond
the scope of one column to tackle all of the unscientific
speculation the media has showered upon
us, there are two areas of debate I
wish to discuss here: claims of
(non-Norse)
Europeans in America before
Columbus and theories of life beyond
Earth.
I suggest the media inappropriately
responded to the primary scientific
speculation
of these two areas of debate,
others (including the media) extended
unwarranted conclusions, which combined
to create a body of secondary
speculation.
Such additions usually misrepresent
the initial claims of the scientists
involved.
Debate is essential, but that "body of
secondary speculation" is always
unscientific,
often confusing, and sometimes
dangerous.
Before Columbus and the Peopling of the Americas:
The latest
revision
in pre-Columbian American history (henceforth, American
prehistory) and the media's "reporting"
of it, began with the journalist, Dave
Schafer, in a July
30, 1996 Tri-City Herald article, "Skull likely
early
white
settler," and concerned the 8400
(previously
thought to be 9200) year old
skeleton now known as "Kennewick
Man."
Schafer quoted the forensic
anthropologist, Jim Chatters, as saying,
"I don't know what to think yet, it's a
little ambiguous," followed by, "But it
has a lot of European characteristics." By
Dec.
20, 1996, another Tri-City Herald writer, John
Stang,
would describe legal
motions filed by believers who
claimed the skeleton represents an "ethnic
European," "ancient Celts from either
Spain or the British Isles," and "ancient
Scandinavians." [Bruce Johansen, Reilly
Professor of Communications and
Native American Studies at the University
of Nebraska at Omaha, has an online
article, "Great White Hope? Kennewick
Man, the Facts, the Fantasies and the
Stakes," which masterfully explores
Chatter's
involvement and the subsequent
media-hype of this ancient skeleton (as
of Spring, 1999). Click here
to read.]
Chatters'
verbiage,
as a preliminary (read: primary) hypothesis, shouldn't have
been used to support the ensuing,
widespread
accusations that somehow
"science" was wrong in its approach to
American prehistory, though that's
exactly what happened. The media,
by linking the story of Kennewick Man to
problematic sites (Monte
Verde, Meadowcroft,
etc.) and anomalistic skeletal
remains (Spirit
Cave Man, Luzia,
etc.), sought to expose "science" as riddled
with mistakes. The media was
selfish,
concerned only with a cash-driven
agenda, and attempted to turn a minor
story into a major one. When Rep.
Barbara Cubin of Wyoming argued for a
reassessment of Native American land
and water rights, speaking of non-Indians
in America "ten centuries ago," she
contributed to a dangerous body of
secondary speculation. Chatters, as a
scientist, is encouraged to form a
hypothesis
or model, and then test, prove, or
challenge his own suggestion. Just
because something might be so, doesn't
...make it so. Yet, many
were off and running with their own silly (and selfish)
agendas.
Mathematics is
the only exact science--all other pursuits are subject to new
data and a reappraisal of old data.
Scientists involved with American prehistory
have painstakingly constructed the best
model available that fits the data culled
from years of hard work. When this
model is challenged with new data (from
archaeology, linguistics, genetics,
epigraphy,
or other disciplines), any
replacement model must fit (read: explain)
the old data as well as the new. A
court seldom convicts on a single shred
of evidence (ideally), the medical
community rarely supports a treatment
not thoroughly tested (in a perfect
world), and it's unreasonable to expect
American prehistorians to be effected by
public opinion, private agendas, or shoddy
scholarship. They eagerly await new
data, reasonable arguments, and the
correction
of mistakes or the improvement
of previous models. Why shouldn't
they? That's science!
From within
the
very academic community that the media and others have
teased and taunted, Dennis
Stanford, chairman of the anthropology department
at the Smithsonian Institution's National
Museum of Natural History, has
recently suggested Ice Age Europeans
("Solutreans"
from Iberia, c. 17,000
BCE, to be specific) somehow crossed the
Atlantic Ocean and inspired or
impacted upon the Native American culture,
c. 11,000 BCE, termed "Clovis,"
from the unique, bifacial lithic points
discovered near Clovis, New Mexico, and
which bear a slight resemblance to Ice
Age European lithics. Stanford's
Solutrean-Clovis hypothesis is one of
the wildest suggestions I've encountered in
years, I personally giggle at the idea,
but I trust Stanford to pursue his model,
investigate it, and maintain a scientific
approach. Others have already accepted
the idea of Ice Age diffusion between
the Old and New Worlds and are taking
aim at other models of American
prehistory.
This is wrong and Stanford would
be one of the first to attest to
this.
A maybe does not make it so...
Last month's "Clovis
and Beyond" conference brought many exciting ideas to
the table of discussion. Land
migration
across Beringia
is now regarded as "a"
method of entry into the New World, as
opposed to the "only" way. The
investigation of ancient maritime activity
will undoubtedly add much to our
better understanding of American
prehistory.
The so-called "Clovis Barrier"
was unofficially broken years ago, as
scientists concerned themselves with
models that would explain genetic
and linguistic
drift in the Americas. Such
pre-Clovis sites as Monte Verde and
Meadowcroft
show promise and lend
support to earlier suggestions, rather
than (as the media and others would insist)
stand in opposition. It begins with
ideas, but ends with facts. That's science!
Facts, Fictions, and Life beyond Earth:
I opened my eyes
upon
a strange and weird landscape. I knew that I was on
Mars; not once did I
question either my sanity or my wakefulness.
from "Under the Moons of Mars," by Norman
Bean (Edgar Rice Burroughs),
All-Story Magazine, Feb.
1912, later published as A
Princess of Mars.
Though
previous
astronomers had noticed certain physical features of the
Martian surface which resembled straight
lines, it was Giovanni
V. Schiaparelli
who first described them as "canali,"
or channels, in 1877. This description
would inspire Percival
Lowell to declare before the Boston Scientific Society on
May 22, 1894, that the "network on Mars
hints that one planet besides our own
is actually inhabited now." And
so began the modern belief in life beyond Earth,
expanded upon with the fantastic
literature
of Wells, Burroughs, and others,
even though science eventually dismissed
the "canals" on Mars as illusory, an
idea advanced by Eugene. M. Antoniadi
in 1909. [Note: a comparison between
the drawings of Lowell and Antoniadi is
available here
(in Estonian).]
It's safe to
credit
Hugo Gernsback
and his "Ralph 124C 41+: A Romance of
the Year 2660," in Modern
Electronics
(serialized 1911-1912), with instigating
"science fiction" as a distinct literary
genre, the 1938 radio-adaptation
of H. G.
Wells' The War of the Worlds,
by Orson Welles, with establishing the present
gullibility of the American public, and
Ray Palmer, editor of Amazing Stories
and founder of Fate Magazine,
with introducing the public to the term "flying
saucer" and all of the subsequent hysteria
attached to UFOs. [Note: For the life
of me I can't seem to get the HTML to
work properly for a Deja News link to a
recent Usenet post concerning Ray
Palmer.
Run a search yourself for this
fascinating article by John Keel.
Keywords: Ray, Palmer, flying, saucer in
alt.fan.rawilson.]
The alleged
"crash"
of an extraterrestrial spacecraft at Roswell,
New Mexico,
in 1947, over two decades of Project
Blue Book by Air Force Intelligence to
determine the validity of various claims,
the recent study by John
Mack of the
Harvard Medical School which concluded
that "alien abduction" must be real, as
it's the only model which explains a
majority
of the facts involved, as well as
other out-of-this-world speculations and
arguments, contributes more to science
fiction than to science. Now, this
is not to imply that science isn't interested in
investigating the possibility of life
beyond Earth--to the contrary, they are!
With the Oct.
4, 1957 launch of Sputnik,
Russia may have beat the U.S. in
the race to place a satellite in orbit
(and, later, with the flight of Major
Gararin
on April 12, 1961, putting the first human
into orbit, as well), but once the
American space program got underway with
Gemini and Apollo, the financial
resources and government commitment to
exploration matched, surpassed, and
continues to outdistance Russia, as well
as all other nations. [Sorry, the previous
was an unabashed, pro-American
plug!]
Regardless of nationality, all mankind
should take pride in our first steps into
space and continuing quest to explore
and understand the universe around us.
The scientific
interest in the possibility of life beyond Earth did not arise
from
theology, superstition, psychological
dysfunction, or urban myth, but rather was
formulated from models about the origins
of life on Earth and the existence of
planets
orbiting the countless suns in the vastness of space. Life beyond
Earth,
therefore, is a suggestion deduced by
science from data and is not a product of
silly claims. All investigations
must start with a suggestion--the next steps
determine if the investigation is serious
(read: scientific) or not.
S.E.T.I.
(Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence)
grew out of the radical
proposal of Giuseppi Cocconi and Philip
Morrison ("Searching
for
Interstellar
Communications*,"
Nature, Vol.184 no. 4690, pp. 844-846, Sept. 19, 1959),
that microwave radio signals were a viable
means of communicating in space,
and the 1960 efforts of astronomer, Frank
Drake, who independently reached
the same conclusion (shades of Darwin,
Wallace, and the theory of evolution)
and conducted the first radio search for
extraterrestrial signals. The following
year saw the publication of R. N. Schwartz
and C. H. Townes' suggestion to use
a laser ("Interstellar
and Interplanetary Communication by Optical Masers,"
Nature, Vol. 190 No. 4772,
pp. 205-208, April 15, 1961) to communicate in
space and, conversely, to scan the heavens
for evidence of wave laser use by
extraterrestrials. Today, both the
microwave radio and optical
ranges
are
searched regularly by a loose (although
extremely dedicated) coalition of
governments, universities, and
private-sector
researchers.
The study of
the
biodiversity of Earth amazed scientists when it was
discovered that "life" could survive and
prosper in some of the most inhospitable
places on the planet, i.e., volcanoes,
near deep-sea hydrothermal
vents, the cold
Antarctic
and Arctic
environs, and can even tolerate the "Old Faithful" geyser
and other hot-springs at Yellowstone
National Park. Marveling at the
perseverance and fecundity of life-forms,
the next logical step was to look
elsewhere for signs of microbial life,
and Mars was, and remains, the nearest and
likeliest candidate.
When the Viking
1 Lander touched down upon Martian soil on July 20,
1976, it carried a sophisticated,
miniature
laboratory designed to conduct three
tests for life on Mars. From NASA's
first grant in the area of biological sciences
in 1959 ($4485 to Wolf Vishniac**, a
professor
of biology at the University of
Rochester, N.Y., to design "a prototype
instrument for the remote detection of
microorganisms on other planets"), through
the highly successful Mariner 9
mission in 1971, a tremendous effort was
made to answer the popular question:
"Is there life
on Mars?"
As these
things
go, perhaps on some level of quantum irony, there was
originally a fourth test scheduled for
Viking 1, but it was dropped in early 1973
as being the least likely to produce
dependable
results. The "fourth" test was
known as the "Wolf
Trap," an instrument which would photoelectrically detect
the growth of organisms in a controlled
medium, and grew out of the NASA
grant of 1959. After the test was
dropped, Vishniac achieved a successful
demonstration at the South Pole,
discovering
"life" in a barren area determined
to be "sterile" according to previous
scientific studies. Unfortunately, Vichniac
fell to his death
in the Asgard Mountains, Antarctica in late 1973, and never
lived to see the landing of Viking 1 on
Mars.
The three
biological
tests performed by Viking 1 produced unclear and
indeterminate results, were of little
or no use to science, but the tests still have
active
supporters. On July 4th, 1996, the Mars
Pathfinder (renamed the Carl
Sagan Memorial Station, after the
late astronomer) landed with further scientific
instruments,
however the mission didn't include any tests for "life" on Mars.
Next month's Mars
Polar Lander will conduct several tests, but none specifically
for "life." It looks like the
question
of "life" on Mars may have to wait until the
missions of 2003
and 2005, with the declared goals of returning soil samples to
Earth, although some believe the question
was answered in 1996.
On August 6,
1996,
speaking about NASA's
claim
to have found evidence of
life in a Martian meteorite, President
Clinton held a press conference on the
South Lawn of the White House and
commented,
"If this discovery is confirmed,
it will surely be one of the most stunning
insights into our universe that science
has ever uncovered." Despite
Clinton's
later sly ambiguity during his
Jones-Lewinsky testimony, the
qualification
"If this discovery is confirmed..."
was sound and appropriate. Just
because a claim is made, even from NASA,
does not ...make it so.
Science
demands every theory be tested.
The next day, August
7, 1996, NASA administrator Dan
Goldin, introducing
a panel which would discuss the
extraordinary
claim, thanked Clinton and
admitted that the president had asked
that "the discovery is subjected to the
methodical process." Less
than 24 hours later the debate would go public with
a newspaper article, "Similar
UNM Meteorite Study Found No Evidence of
Mars
Life," about a previous study by the University of New Mexico's
Institute
for Meteoritics which didn't find
significant
evidence to support the NASA
claim, but were careful not to contradict
it either.
AH84001,
as the Martian meteorite is designated, is thought to be a rock
formed 4 1/2 billion years ago, ripped
from Mars some 16 million years ago,
flew around the Sun for a long time,
before
finally crashing in the Antarctic
about 13 thousand years ago. The
NASA claim is that microbial life on Mars
left "carbonate globules" when the rock
initially formed, and those globules are
described as "mico-fossils" or
nanofossils.
Within a couple of months of
NASA's claim, allowing time to study the
evidence, many scientists
from around
the world were questioning methodology
and interpretation. Some suggested
that coating a thin slice of the Martian
rock before examining it under an
electron microscope alters the evidence,
while others cautioned that one's
"micro-fossil" is anothers' naturally
produced artifact.
The debate is
far from over, it looks like President Clinton got his wish as far
as NASA's claim being subjected to the
"methodical process," but many see
positive results from the whole
experience.
Suggestion, model, theory, testing,
debate, more testing, more debate, and,
sometimes, consensus... What's
important is the debate and the
sharing of ideas. NASA's claim may eventually
be dismissed,
but the "process" has strengthened and enriched our ability to
suggest and accept new ideas. We're
better for it...
As far as life
beyond Earth is concerned, an important observation was
recently made by Apollo 12 astronaut,
Pete Conrad, "I
always
thought the most
significant thing we found on the whole
goddamn Moon was that little bacteria
who came back and lived and nobody ever
said shit about it." Bacteria on the
Moon? Perhaps...
When Apollo 12
touched down upon the Moon on Nov.12, 1969, one of
their assignments
was to retrieve the camera from the unmanned Surveyor 3,
which had landed two and a half years
earlier. After returning to Earth, the
camera and some other materials brought
back from Surveyor 3 were found to
contain Streptococcus mitis,
the common bacteria which produces strep-throat.
It would appear that the bacteria hitched
a ride to Moon, survived without air,
food, or water, in a way chilly
environment,
and recuperated nicely once it got
back to Earth. And, as this line
of argument
goes, there may be other examples
of the strep bacteria aboard Surveyor
3 at this time. So, there is life beyond
Earth, but ...it originated here! [Note:
The claims of Streptococcus mitis
surviving in space and some examples still
on the Moon have been challenged.
It's been suggested there was
contamination
after Apollo 12 returned to Earth
and there are no terrestrial microbes
presently on the Moon. I guess ...only time
will tell.]
The Method and Message of Science:
The path which
began with Babylonian astronomers, inspired the so-called
"presocratic philosophers" who, in turn,
cleared the way for our great Greek and
Roman thinkers, which wound through
Arabia,
India, China, and back, turned
into the road of science under Copernicus,
Newton, and Descarte, became a
vertible turnpike with the likes of
Einstein
and Plank, and, today, is a wide
superhighway capable of supporting travel
to places as yet unimagined. This is
science!
Some declared
after the "Clovis and Beyond" conference that it was an
exciting time to be involved in the study
of American prehistory, a sentiment, I
imagine, that's shared by scientists in
such fields as genetics, physics, astronomy,
artificial intelligence, and more.
It's an exciting time to be alive! Still, others
suggest pragmatism, view science as "closeminded,"
seek to discover their own
path, and wish to discount millennia of
scientific efforts because they favor one
(or several) "new" ideas. I suspect
a certain amount of gullibility
at work, here,
with more than a touch of unscientific
methods involved.
The
sensational
(and way silly) prime-time television specials about aliens and
ancient "science" are successful
entertainment.
The major magazines which run
articles that challenge the theory of
evolution and defend the "history" of The
Bible always seem to do so around
religious holidays. Newspaper accounts
about "mainstream scientists" and the
implication that they're either lying or
incompetent appear to be co-written with
libel attorneys. And the radio
talkshows? I'm embarrassed to admit
my utter contempt for them. It seems to
be a question of louder, faster,
weirder and the audience will follow. I miss the
late astronomer, Carl
Sagan, a lot... He answered their louder with softer,
faster
with slower, and weirder
with weirder still.
There's no
going
back to pre-scientific innocence and we'll all just have to
struggle to keep up with the latest
theories,
experiments, and breakthroughs, all
the while maintaining a healthy skepticism
regarding fantastic claims. I'm
reminded of the cautionary ending to the
sci.skeptic
newsgroup
FAQ: "Starting
a scientific revolution is a long, hard
slog. Don't expect it to be easy. If it was,
we would have them every week."
*Thanks to Philip
Morrison
for the reference to his classic paper.
**Larry Klaes, Vice
president
of the Boston Chapter
of
the National Space
Society graciously
refreshed my memory about Prof. Vishniac.
looking ahead,
Rick