Is Mars Habitable? By Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913)

[AGWFacts]

http://librivox.org/is-mars-habitable-by-alfred-russel-wallace/

In 1907 Wallace wrote the short book Is Mars Habitable? to
criticize the claims made by Percival Lowell that there were
Martian canals built by intelligent beings. Wallace did months of
research, consulted various experts, and produced his own
scientific analysis of the Martian climate and atmospheric
conditions. Among other things Wallace pointed out that
spectroscopic analysis had shown no signs of water vapor in the
Martian atmosphere, that Lowell’s analysis of Mars’ climate was
seriously flawed and badly overestimated the surface temperature,
and that low atmospheric pressure would make liquid water, let
alone a planet girding irrigation system, impossible. (from
Wikipedia)

http://www.archive.org/download/is_mars_habitable_cal_librivox/is_mars_habitable_cal_librivox_64kb_mp3.zip


--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels
to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[John Stockwell]

On Dec 19, 8:53 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> http://librivox.org/is-mars-habitable-by-alfred-russel-wallace/
>
> In 1907 Wallace wrote the short book Is Mars Habitable? to
> criticize the claims made by Percival Lowell that there were
> Martian canals built by intelligent beings. Wallace did months of
> research, consulted various experts, and produced his own
> scientific analysis of the Martian climate and atmospheric
> conditions. Among other things Wallace pointed out that
> spectroscopic analysis had shown no signs of water vapor in the
> Martian atmosphere, that Lowell’s analysis of Mars’ climate was
> seriously flawed and badly overestimated the surface temperature,
> and that low atmospheric pressure would make liquid water, let
> alone a planet girding irrigation system, impossible. (from
> Wikipedia)
>

> http://www.archive.org/download/is_mars_habitable_cal_librivox/is_mar...

>
> --
> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels

> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

Yep. Percival Lowell---another great intelligent design theorist.

-John

[jillery]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:53:06 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
wrote:

>http://librivox.org/is-mars-habitable-by-alfred-russel-wallace/
>
>In 1907 Wallace wrote the short book Is Mars Habitable? to
>criticize the claims made by Percival Lowell that there were
>Martian canals built by intelligent beings. Wallace did months of
>research, consulted various experts, and produced his own
>scientific analysis of the Martian climate and atmospheric
>conditions. Among other things Wallace pointed out that
>spectroscopic analysis had shown no signs of water vapor in the
>Martian atmosphere, that Lowell’s analysis of Mars’ climate was
>seriously flawed and badly overestimated the surface temperature,
>and that low atmospheric pressure would make liquid water, let
>alone a planet girding irrigation system, impossible. (from
>Wikipedia)
>
>http://www.archive.org/download/is_mars_habitable_cal_librivox/is_mars_habitable_cal_librivox_64kb_mp3.zip

Good for Wallace. He gets far less credit than he deserves. Damn the
English aristocracy!

[jillery]

But he did some kickass astronomy. His reputation isn't too much
differnet from Hoyle's.

[AGWFacts]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:07:44 -0800 (PST), John Stockwell
<john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 19, 8:53 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> > http://librivox.org/is-mars-habitable-by-alfred-russel-wallace/
> >
> > In 1907 Wallace wrote the short book Is Mars Habitable? to
> > criticize the claims made by Percival Lowell that there were
> > Martian canals built by intelligent beings. Wallace did months of
> > research, consulted various experts, and produced his own
> > scientific analysis of the Martian climate and atmospheric
> > conditions. Among other things Wallace pointed out that
> > spectroscopic analysis had shown no signs of water vapor in the
> > Martian atmosphere, that Lowell’s analysis of Mars’ climate was
> > seriously flawed and badly overestimated the surface temperature,
> > and that low atmospheric pressure would make liquid water, let
> > alone a planet girding irrigation system, impossible. (from
> > Wikipedia)
> >
> > http://www.archive.org/download/is_mars_habitable_cal_librivox/is_mar...

> Yep. Percival Lowell---another great intelligent design theorist.

Heee! You are right---- that never occurred to me. But he was not
the only astronomer who believed he saw artificial canals on Mars:
there were a handful of people who made astonishingly accurate
measurements, and detailed maps, of these utterly imaginary canals
and seas.

Wallace took as fact that the canals existed as described. That
was perfectly reasonable on his part, considering he didn't have
his own telescope *AND* considering the other astronomers besides
Lowell who reported seeing the canals.

It freaks me out, and I find disturbing, how these perfectly
rational, reasoning, critically-thinking scientists were able to
fool themselves; even Lowell said many of the largest canals he
observed seemed to briefly appear, then disappear for long periods
of time.

It makes me wonder what other things scientists of the world see,
but don't actually exist. Peer review is supposed to limit this
problem, but what happens when instrumentation to make
observations exists in the hands of a tiny few?

> -John

--
"I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three... and CO2 levels

to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- cato...@sympatico.ca

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 00:17:55 -0500, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Wallace actually kicked Lowell's ass in the essay, but in a polite
way. Wallace pointed out that spectroscopy showed not even a hint
of water vapor in the atmosphere of Mars---- a point Lowell
studiously ignored to the point of pathology.

Alfred Russel Wallace had a very find critical mind, and he was
best at picking apart other people's reasoning. He would have
LOVED Usenet.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Lowell founded a fine privately run observatory in Arizona, which still does
important work, long before the idea of observing from excellent sites
occurred to other astronomers in Eastern cities. It now collaborates
closely with the US Naval Observatory. But his own astronomy was a lot less
brilliant than you think.

On the other hand, Hoyle did some astrophysical theory that has stood the
test of time and was the foundation explanation of how the elements form in
stars. His ideas about the steady-state theory vs big bang were important
for sharpening the arguments and observations of proponents of both theories
even though eventually the steady state was ruled out by its unphysical
arguments and crucial observations. He was wrong about continental drift
and about archaeopteryx.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Kleuskes & Moos]

Any great man is entitled to a few funny ideas, but it helps your reputation
if you keep them to yourself.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________
/ I just forgot my whole philosophy of \
\ life!!! /
--------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Steven L.]

"AGWF...@ipcc.org" <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote in message
news:ra80f7pipvhh3jcrr...@4ax.com:

There was the infamous example of Dr. Painter, who after careful
examination through a microscope in 1923 concluded that humans have 48
chromosomes. That figure was widely accepted for decades.

It wasn't until 1956 that other scientists discovered that Dr. Painter
had been wrong, and that humans have only 46 chromosomes.

While microscopes were widely available in the 1930-1950 period,
sophisticated techniques for cytology were not. And so that 48 number
was accepted for 30 years without peer review refuting it.




-- Steven L.

[Richard Harter]

On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:56:25 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
wrote:

Seeing fine lines is an artifact of direct obsrvation with the naked
eye. If memory serves me, it was an Italian astronomer who first
referred to fine lines seen in his observations of Mars as canali,
which simply means (IIANM) fine lines. Lowell and others misread
canali as canals and took off from there.

>
>It makes me wonder what other things scientists of the world see,
>but don't actually exist. Peer review is supposed to limit this
>problem, but what happens when instrumentation to make
>observations exists in the hands of a tiny few?
>

Good question.

[John Stockwell]

On Dec 20, 4:29 am, "Steven L." <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "AGWFa...@ipcc.org" <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote in message

That's just an observational error. The "canals on Mars" issue is
different.

in the case of Lowell, and other canals of
Mars watchers, it was Giovanni Schiaparelli's use of the word
"canali" (channels) mistranslated to "canals" that launched a whole
mythology of regarding an alien civilization on a dying planet
speculation.

Compare this with Peter Nykos' "directed panspermy" speculations. When
the observations plus the explanation yields and ever increasing
series
of unconstrained speculation, then you can see that you have left the
world
of science.

Where Lowell stuck to the science, his work was built on.

>
> -- Steven L.

-John

[Paul J Gans]

And the fact that the other nation of English speakers across the
Atlantic didn't give a hoot about anything intellectual.

I suspect that few if any Presidental candidates of any party have
ever heard of him. And it wasn't the British aristocracy that made
him unknown here.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Paul J Gans]

Peer review worked. It isn't instantaneous, but it does work.

What seems to have happened was that IF you accept canals, you
are sort of forced into accepting the rest of the baggage. And
the thing that did it was that natural features don't run in
straight lines and the "canals" were reported to be straight
lines.

By the way, I understand that attempts to figure out what those
folks actually saw (they were not lying -- they *did* see stuff)
led to discoveries about the human visual system.

There is good stuff at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_canal

[Paul J Gans]

But it *DID* refute it in the end. It is too much to expect that
every singe paper be immediately redone to see if it is right.

The mills of peer review grind slow, but very finely.

[Stephen]

> > his own telescope AND considering the other astronomers besides

> > Lowell who reported seeing the canals.
> >
> > It freaks me out, and I find disturbing, how these perfectly
> > rational, reasoning, critically-thinking scientists were able to
> > fool themselves; even Lowell said many of the largest canals he
> > observed seemed to briefly appear, then disappear for long periods
> > of time.
>
> Seeing fine lines is an artifact of direct obsrvation with the naked
> eye. If memory serves me, it was an Italian astronomer who first
> referred to fine lines seen in his observations of Mars as canali,
> which simply means (IIANM) fine lines. Lowell and others misread
> canali as canals and took off from there.
> >
> > It makes me wonder what other things scientists of the world see,
> > but don't actually exist. Peer review is supposed to limit this
> > problem, but what happens when instrumentation to make
> > observations exists in the hands of a tiny few?
> >
>
> Good question.

The issue of _canali_ seems to me one of translation of the original
writer's intent rather than just the written word. "Canals" is just as
legitimate translation as "channels" depending on intended meaning. For
instance, the canals of Venice are "canali". There are a number of
possible translations (after consulting my Italian-English dictionary)
of _canali_ including the senses of "diplomatic channels",
"communication channels", "tv channels" and, in biology/anatomy,
"ducts". It's a matter of having a good idea of what the original
writer intended.

(NB: ISTM there are some native Italian speakers on the forum, and I'd
defer to them in a nanosecond or less on this matter.)

S.

--

[jillery]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:53:24 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:53:06 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
>>wrote:
>
>>>http://librivox.org/is-mars-habitable-by-alfred-russel-wallace/
>>>
>>>In 1907 Wallace wrote the short book Is Mars Habitable? to
>>>criticize the claims made by Percival Lowell that there were
>>>Martian canals built by intelligent beings. Wallace did months of
>>>research, consulted various experts, and produced his own
>>>scientific analysis of the Martian climate and atmospheric
>>>conditions. Among other things Wallace pointed out that
>>>spectroscopic analysis had shown no signs of water vapor in the

>>>Martian atmosphere, that Lowell?s analysis of Mars? climate was

>>>seriously flawed and badly overestimated the surface temperature,
>>>and that low atmospheric pressure would make liquid water, let
>>>alone a planet girding irrigation system, impossible. (from
>>>Wikipedia)
>>>
>>>http://www.archive.org/download/is_mars_habitable_cal_librivox/is_mars_habitable_cal_librivox_64kb_mp3.zip
>
>
>>Good for Wallace. He gets far less credit than he deserves. Damn the
>>English aristocracy!
>
>And the fact that the other nation of English speakers across the
>Atlantic didn't give a hoot about anything intellectual.

Canada? [1]

>I suspect that few if any Presidental candidates of any party have
>ever heard of him. And it wasn't the British aristocracy that made
>him unknown here.

I made a mild witticism, not to be taken literally. I was thinking of
Sir Charles Lyell and Sir Joseph Hooker, both personal friends of
Darwin, who submitted Wallace's letter and Darwin's abstract to the
Linnean Society to formally establish precedence for the
Darwin-Wallace Theory of Evolution. It is our human tendency to
simplify that we drop Wallace out of much of the discussion.


[1] You can't possibly mean the U.S. Nobody here knows how to speak
English [2].

[2] That's another mild witticism. I lack self-control [3]

[3] see [2]

[johnetho...@yahoo.com]

N rays come to mind as a great example.

> Peer review is supposed to limit this
> problem, but what happens when instrumentation to make
> observations exists in the hands of a tiny few?
>
> > -John
>
> --
> "I'd like the globe to warm another degree or two or three...  and CO2 levels

> to increase perhaps another 100ppm - 300ppm." -- caton...@sympatico.ca

[AGWFacts]

On Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:58:29 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:

> AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 20:07:44 -0800 (PST), John Stockwell
> ><john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Dec 19, 8:53 pm, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org> wrote:
> >> > http://librivox.org/is-mars-habitable-by-alfred-russel-wallace/
> >> >
> >> > In 1907 Wallace wrote the short book Is Mars Habitable? to
> >> > criticize the claims made by Percival Lowell that there were
> >> > Martian canals built by intelligent beings. Wallace did months of
> >> > research, consulted various experts, and produced his own
> >> > scientific analysis of the Martian climate and atmospheric
> >> > conditions. Among other things Wallace pointed out that
> >> > spectroscopic analysis had shown no signs of water vapor in the

> >> > Martian atmosphere, that Lowell?s analysis of Mars? climate was

Ah, I love WikiPedia. I thought a 16-inch reflector was initially
used, but it appears it was 6 inches. There may be some kind of
metaphysical philosophical lesson in scientists projecting a part
of human anatomy (veins in their eyes) onto the Martian surface.

[Perseus]

On Dec 20, 6:57 pm, "Stephen" <ssan...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Richard Harter wrote:

> > On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:56:25 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org>

canali is the plural of canal
Perseu

[Perseus]

On Dec 20, 4:18 pm, c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Dec 2011 22:56:25 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWFa...@ipcc.org>

If a fucking Italian astronomer saw "canali" is Mars, US astronomers
were not going to be less.

Perseus