Ira Flatow (By E-Mail) 10-16-92

 ______________________________________________________________

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.