“The new science fiction blockbuster [motion picture] ‘Avatar’ [December 2009] is set on habitable and inhabited moon Pandora, which orbits the fictional gas giant Polyphemus in the real Alpha Centauri system.
“Although life-bearing moons like Pandora or the Star Wars forest moon of Endor are staples of science fiction, astronomers have yet to discover any moons [exomoons] beyond our solar system. However, they could be science fact, and researchers might soon not only be able to spot them, but also scan their atmospheres for key signs of life as we know it, such as oxygen and water.
“‘If Pandora existed, we potentially could detect it and study it atmosphere in the next decade,’ said astrophysicist Lisa Kaltenegger of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Mass” (Choi, 28 December 2009).
UNDISCOVERED MOONS: Science fiction notwithstanding, “astronomers have yet to discover any moons beyond our solar system.” The question one might ask is this: given that scientists have no evidence whatsoever for such exomoons, why is there such unbridled optimism about future discoveries? Imagine, if you will, trying to be convinced by a horse racing gambler who said he had never ever won a nickel at the track, but that tomorrow he would clean up. Would you believe him? Hardly. Why would you place any confidence in an astrophysicist who made a similar promise? Show me the money first.
POTENTIAL NUMBERS: Even though such exomoons have yet to be discovered, the author claims that “they could be science fact...” Yes. But exactly how? Science is an empirical enterprise, depending on observation (among other things). The unseen - and undiscovered - does not fall within the purview of science. Instead, some astrophysicists appear to speculate on the existence of those exomoons based upon the huge numbers of celestial objects that can be seen. It is almost as if to say, that the sheer numbers planets...require the existence of those exomoons. Perhaps. Yet, to conclude that is beyond the practical scope of science. Science deals with reality; not subjunctive and metaphysical probabilities.
THE UNSEEN IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER: Not only are we treated to this vast wash of limitless potentiality, but the author also seems to think that “researchers might soon not only be able to spot [exomoons], but scan their atmospheres for key signs of life...” Happy day, indeed! Something we’ve never seen will soon be discovered. We all admire this heady, third-grader, bubbly optimism. Such optimism makes us long for the days when Christopher Columbus tried to convince his crew that India was just over the horizon - just before they slapped him into leg-irons and put him in the brig.
INDESTRUCTIBLE CONDITIONALS: Ms. Lisa Kaltenegger tells us, “If Pandora existed, we potentially could detect it and study its atmosphere in the next decade.” Really? We have no evidence that a Pandora-like moon exists. If it did exist, we could detect it (potentially), given the proper instrumentation with which to see it. Unexplained at this point in her argument, however, is Ms. Kaltenegger’s contention that the atmosphere of an undiscovered planet could be studied “in the next decade.” Why the next decade? We should understand that Ms. Kaltenegger’s conditional depends upon the existence of Pandora, which at this stage of space exploration is an unproven assumption. However, Ms. Kaltenegger’s statement would be true even if Pandora’s existence were a sheer impossibility: “If (Something-Or-Other; or A Heavenly Body Composed of Blueberries) existed, then we could see it.” Well, yeah. If my brother-in-law was Einstein, I could see him, too. But that wouldn’t prove anything.
You might want to rethink some of this, Lisa.
Choi, Charles Q. “Moons Like Avatar’s Pandora Could Be Found.” Online posting. 28 December 2009.
UNDISCOVERED MOONS: Science fiction notwithstanding, “astronomers have yet to discover any moons beyond our solar system.” The question one might ask is this: given that scientists have no evidence whatsoever for such exomoons, why is there such unbridled optimism about future discoveries? Imagine, if you will, trying to be convinced by a horse racing gambler who said he had never ever won a nickel at the track, but that tomorrow he would clean up. Would you believe him? Hardly. Why would you place any confidence in an astrophysicist who made a similar promise? Show me the money first.
POTENTIAL NUMBERS: Even though such exomoons have yet to be discovered, the author claims that “they could be science fact...” Yes. But exactly how? Science is an empirical enterprise, depending on observation (among other things). The unseen - and undiscovered - does not fall within the purview of science. Instead, some astrophysicists appear to speculate on the existence of those exomoons based upon the huge numbers of celestial objects that can be seen. It is almost as if to say, that the sheer numbers planets...require the existence of those exomoons. Perhaps. Yet, to conclude that is beyond the practical scope of science. Science deals with reality; not subjunctive and metaphysical probabilities.
THE UNSEEN IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER: Not only are we treated to this vast wash of limitless potentiality, but the author also seems to think that “researchers might soon not only be able to spot [exomoons], but scan their atmospheres for key signs of life...” Happy day, indeed! Something we’ve never seen will soon be discovered. We all admire this heady, third-grader, bubbly optimism. Such optimism makes us long for the days when Christopher Columbus tried to convince his crew that India was just over the horizon - just before they slapped him into leg-irons and put him in the brig.
INDESTRUCTIBLE CONDITIONALS: Ms. Lisa Kaltenegger tells us, “If Pandora existed, we potentially could detect it and study its atmosphere in the next decade.” Really? We have no evidence that a Pandora-like moon exists. If it did exist, we could detect it (potentially), given the proper instrumentation with which to see it. Unexplained at this point in her argument, however, is Ms. Kaltenegger’s contention that the atmosphere of an undiscovered planet could be studied “in the next decade.” Why the next decade? We should understand that Ms. Kaltenegger’s conditional depends upon the existence of Pandora, which at this stage of space exploration is an unproven assumption. However, Ms. Kaltenegger’s statement would be true even if Pandora’s existence were a sheer impossibility: “If (Something-Or-Other; or A Heavenly Body Composed of Blueberries) existed, then we could see it.” Well, yeah. If my brother-in-law was Einstein, I could see him, too. But that wouldn’t prove anything.
You might want to rethink some of this, Lisa.
Choi, Charles Q. “Moons Like Avatar’s Pandora Could Be Found.” Online posting. 28 December 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment