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 <<<------- * *********************************************************************