Please read the following description and then complete the activities that follow. Parts 1 and 2 are due by 12/17/10. Part 3 is due by 1/5/11.
Pseudoscience and Skeptical Thinking
What is pseudoscience? At its most basic, pseudoscience is “false science.” That’s what pseudo means—false. More descriptively, pseudoscience is a way to explain or make claims about phenomena that cannot be proven scientifically through experimentation that can be reviewed and repeated by other scientists.
Science deals with theories that are measurable, testable, and verifiable. Scientists conduct experiments and make observations to collect data upon which conclusions can be based. They then report their conclusions, data, and methods so that other scientists can repeat that work and verify the results. As new evidence becomes available, scientific theories are subject to change or modification. Pseudoscience makes claims without meeting these requirements and often ignores new evidence disproving a pet theory.
Pseudoscience is pervasive in our society. Consider the popularity of astrology, Big Foot, and the Loch Ness monster. Although it can be entertaining, pseudoscience undermines developing a scientifically literate public. The ability to think critically is important when evaluating information that can influence decisions about anything from our quality of life to how the government allocates money for scientific research. For example, topics such as global warming and the existence of intelligent civilizations on Mars can only be resolved through critical examination. Your success in interpreting such reports depends on your ability to pick out which theories can be supported scientifically and which cannot. Those that cannot are pseudoscience.
Why has pseudoscience become so pervasive in our society? One reason is that sensational claims, like those that use the “Face on Mars” to say there is intelligent life on Mars, help sell tabloid newspapers or books on the subject. Also, many people like to believe certain ideas, no matter how poorly supported they are. Pseudoscience offers a way for people to believe in fantastic ideas just because they sound so real and scientific. Pseudoscience frequently uses scientific language that sounds impressive to non-critical readers and viewers, but is, in fact, purposely misleading.
How do you tell the difference between science and pseudoscience? When evaluating reports that claim to be scientific—whether in print, on television, on the Internet, or by word of mouth—it is important to be a skeptical thinker. A skeptical thinker is one who recognizes, or at least questions, if a claim or theory is supported by evidence. Here are some basic guidelines for recognizing pseudoscience:
How valid are the sources of information?
Experts are usually cited in support of a claim. Check them out. What are their biases? Are they likely to benefit significantly by supporting one claim over another? Experts cited without names, without affiliations, or without other references that would make it possible to identify and contact them are suspect. Anonymity is not part of the scientific process. Moreover, a legitimate scientist will have publications. These are often available on the Web. If in doubt about sources cited in an article, use a search engine to see if the individuals have been active in the field of research they are being referenced on, or if these people even exist!
How do alternate theories compare?
When a specific theory is being presented, consider alternate explanations. Start with the simplest explanation first. The more complex, confusing, and twisted the logic used to support a hypothesis, the greater the likelihood that it is false. Theories that depend on conspiracies or that deny any contrary evidence are most suspect. Often in pseudoscience, any data that question the validity of a claim are rejected as having been faked or covered up.
Is a statement or theory open to scientific testing?
If scientists cannot design an experiment to test a theory, then the theory is out of the realm of science. Statements based on faith or opinion are not necessarily unimportant, but they are not open to scientific scrutiny. Be wary of statements supported by scientific-sounding explanations but that stop short of offering real evidence that can be verified by independent researchers. Scientific testing includes peer review (review by other scientists) and publication in professional journals. Be cautious of reports presented in obscure publications or publications that are not open to peer review.
Can evidence offered in support of a statement or theory be confirmed?
Speculation without evidence is nothing more than opinion. Opinion is useful to begin a discussion, but it is unacceptable as the basis for sound decisions. Other people should be able to set up an experiment and come to similar conclusions. If new data call a theory into question, then the theory must be reconsidered. It may be totally false, or it may need to be revised based on new evidence. This is one of the cornerstones of science. Scientists do not fear the revision of a theory as a result of new data. In some cases, a theory is thrown out altogether while in others it is strengthened by new evidence.
If in doubt, check it out
Pseudoscience is most obvious when it is presented in a tabloid that specializes in exaggerated and unsubstantiated claims. However, it is important to recognize it when it appears in scientific reporting by the non-tabloid media. To simplify the reading level or to catch the attention of a passerby, reporters might overstate or sensationalize what they are reporting. Be a skeptical thinker; analyze everything; and if in doubt, check it out.
Assignment
Part 1: Read the following "science" articles and then post your answers to the related questions.
Article 1
Article 2
1. In each article, what is the theory or hypothesis used to explain the Viking image of the “Face” on Mars?
2. What experiment did scientists use to collect data to prove or disprove each theory?
3. Compare how the two articles used data in their contradictory reports on the “Face” on Mars.
4. How would you check out the statements made in each article to verify the claims?
5. Which article would you classify as pseudoscience? Explain your answer.
Part 2: Write a reflective post based on the following:
In this activity, you saw how easy it is to make an extraordinary claim sound scientific. Much of our view on whether we should expend time, energy, and money on searching for life in our universe is determined by reports we see presented in print or shown on television. What is the responsibility of the media in reporting on the search for life? What is the responsibility of the scientific community in reporting what their research
shows? What is your responsibility when you read such reports?
Part 3: Write a one page tabloid-like front-page story that includes a drawing and description of what you think life on another world might really look and be like. Use the Pseudoscience Tabloid Format as a guideline for your article. List how you violated the guidelines for valid scientific reporting as outlined in the Pseudoscience and Skeptical Thinking article at the start of this post.
Pseudoscience Tabloid Format
In the first article the they believe that the face was caused by marsian civilizations. the second articel states that it is a naturally forming miountain possibly from glaciers wind or plate tectonics.
ReplyDeleteBoth of the scientists took better pictures but in the second article they used a laser to find all of the mountains dimensions. Also they took several high quality photos several times with well known sattelites.
The first article used unnamed scientists and come to thik of it no solid dates numbers our who took the pictures. THe second article gave credit to all the scientists gave dates and the names of the sattelites that took pictures. The second article also provided several pictures and provided both sides of the arguement.
Someone could look up the scientists our the sattelites. You could also look to see if the same pictures as in the article are available on the web.Dates were given for when all of the pictures wher taken and you could probably check those on the nasa website.
I would say that the first article is pseudoscience. This article did not give the names of any of the sientists or where they got thier picture they simple stated that it was better.NOthing in the article could be looked up. there wernet very many hard numbers and it just sounded a little extreme.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart 1:
ReplyDelete1. In article 1 the theory used to explain the “face” on Mars is that the face is part of a city from a past or present civilization. The theory used in article 2 is that the “face” is a natural landform.
2. For both theories, scientists took pictures of the “face” with space probes. In the second article, it says they used a laser beam to precisely measure the height.
3. The first article was very vague in their use of proof. They had no specific data, like dates, and they used very few names. Also, their quotes were broken apart in a way that can be used to prove a different point than they were intended to prove. In the second article, they used several dates, names, and details as well as full sentence quotes.
4. To verify the statements, you could visit NASA’s website or look up the scientists mentioned in each article. Also, the pictures taken could be found online with further information as to where and when they originated.
5. The first article is pseudoscience. There was not enough substantial evidence to support their claims. The lack of dates and scientists’ names shows that it could have easily been exaggerated. Also, they didn’t have specific details as to where their picture of the “face” came from which leads me to believe it might not be real.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteThe media’s responsibility in reporting on the search of life is to give us all the facts and not just the ones they want us to hear. They shouldn’t pick and choose what to share to make their news interesting and appealing to the audience. They should tell us the truth.
The scientific community needs to tell us everything that is going on and not just post a picture or a single statement. Different people will interpret it in different ways leading to beliefs that could be incorrect. If they are just straight forward and tell us what their findings are, it won’t cause as much confusion. We have a right to know all the facts.
Our responsibility when we read scientific reports is to sort out what’s true and what’s totally unbelievable. We can’t believe something we know is completely ridiculous just because a supposed scientist or the media said it. We have to know that sometimes they lie or hide facts from us.
Part 1:
ReplyDelete1. The first article states that the "face" was created as part of a city with parallel architecture similar to the Egyptian pyramids. The second article states that the "face" is another common mesa in this region of Mars known as Cydonia.
2. The first article used a picture of the "face" but didn't state what took the picture and when it was taken. The second article used multiple pictures of the "face" and cited what took them and when they were taken. They also used lasers to measure the height, volume, and aspect ratio of the "face."
3. The first article was a mess. In the whole article, they used only one person as a source. The other sources were either anonymous, disclosed, or extremely vague.
The second article had a lot of data to support their idea. They used multiple names of people with direct quotes, pictures with clear captions, and specific dates of certain events in time to support their idea and tie the whole article together.
4. To verify the statements in each article, you could research their data using resources like the internet. If using the internet, it'd be better to use trusted sites like NASA's website where you could get the facts rather than Wikipedia where anyone could change an article and give you misleading information.
5. The first article is obviously pseudoscience. It was just a lot of entertaining and over exaggerated ideas with absolutely no facts to back them up. The fact that it's also written in a tabloid form also supports the idea that this article is not the real deal.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteThe responsibility of the media in reporting the search of life on other planets is to just get the unaltered hypotheses and theories out to the public. They're not supposed to write pseudoscience articles that would mislead people.
The responsibility of the scientific community is to basically test these theories. They will decipher which theories they can realistically design an experiment and test.
Our responsibility when reading these reports is to review the information like we just did. We will evaluate the ideas and how they are supported by either fact or opinion. We will also ultimately decide which theory we believe in and then eventually support.
ok so this part is seperate from the questions I did earlier. The media should be telling the public the unchanged story and give only the information not changing it. Unourtianetly this does not sell magezines/ newspaper so they change what they have into something totally diffrent.
ReplyDeleteThe scientists are researchers and thats what they should do research and report there findings only. THey should not have to defend their findings.
When we read these kinds of articles we really just need to use common sense. Most of the time thats all we need to do and not jsut beleive any thing we hear. We should however pay atention to if the scientists names are listed if credit is given and where the information came from. When its hard to tell we should look up the scientists the numbers and other articles on the subject.
Part 1:
ReplyDelete1. Article 1 says the face was made by some martian civilization that wanted us to see the face. Article 2 says the face appeared by glaciers and shadows from the sun along with sculpting wind.
2. Article 1 did not use any experiment except for looking at pictures that were even blocked by a cloud. Article 2 used the laser altimeter to measure the depth and then used that data to create a computerized map showing there wasn't actually a face.
3. Article 1 was not specific in any thing and didn't even use names. Article 2, however, used an actual scientist's name along with dates. With Article 1 using only the naked eye, Article 2 definitely convinced me by having an experiment.
4. I would go to NASA's official website and keep up with the current news going on in the world that relates to this topic.
5. Article 1 is the pseudoscience one. They were constantly jumping to conclusions and making it try to seem scientifical when they only used their opinions which is not real science.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteThe responsibility for the media is to get the accurate, hard core truth. They should not over exaggerate because that causes others to exaggerate that exaggeration and so on. The responsibility for the scientific community is to get us the information by using experiments, not opinions. These scientists also need to be utterly and completely honest with us for if we were to find out they lied, then we wouldn't believe another word they said. My responsibility is to very carefully read reports looking out for any pseudoscience articles so I don't go blabbering on about false information.
Part 1
ReplyDelete1. Article #1’s theory for the Viking image of the “Face” on Mars is that the face is a structure created by Martian Civilizations similar to our pyramids. Article #2’s theory for the “Face” on Mars is that it is no more than a naturally forming mountain that has been carved out by glaciers, wind, water, etc.
2. All the scientists used high quality pictures from satellites to try and figure out what the “Face” on Mars is. But, in Article #2 they used higher caliber pictures as well as a laser to find the exact depth of the shape so that they could better determine the 3-D view.
3. Article #1 used anonymous names and unclear dates as their data to support their theory. As well as not giving credit to who took the pictures or where they got their citations. On top of that their quotes were short and clipped, making me think that they were cut off and didn’t tell the whole opinion. Article #2 however did give credit to all of its scientists and the people they took quotes from. Not only that, but they also detailed precise dates and even included where the pictures came from and when.
4. To verify the claims made in each article I would try to find all the pictures on the web and make sure they all corresponded with the right times. Another way to verify would be to check up on the scientists listed by doing a general search, or maybe going to NASA to look at their point of view.
5. I would classify the first article as pseudoscience because…
i. The article lacked any evidence to prove their claim
ii. They did not include names of scientists or exact dates which shows they are most likely lying through their teeth
iii. The article is very exaggerated and over the top with no actual “proof” to back it up
iv. The article is written in Tabloid form which means it was meant for the public and we all know that boring facts don’t sell
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe responsibility of the media in reporting on the search for life is to tell the public the all of the hard facts about what’s out there. The media doesn’t have any right to only show what facts they think will make the most cash. The public should know the truth and not be allowed get misled by pseudoscience.
The scientific community’s responsibility in reporting what their research shows is to try and prove their theories correct. Science is all about proving and disproving things, so it is the scientist’s job to report to us whether they succeed or fail. Usually we only know about the theories that have been proven correct, not that thousands of others that haven’t been figured either way yet.
Our responsibility when reading such reports is to look over and analyze it like we just did with those two articles. Our “job” is to look and decide whether to believe something is correct, and from there we get to decide what side we’re on.
Part 1
ReplyDelete1) In the first article they said that the face on mars was made by a civilization that had built its city in a shape similar to Egyptians. In the second they said the image was caused by glaciers or other natural events.
2) Both articles mentioned different resolutions of picture taken at different times. The second article also mentioned using lasers to calculate distances and volumes that are unaltered by any shadows or light.
3) The first article said things like “NASA officials” and “a former NASA scientist that preferred to remain anonymous”, to me it doesn’t seem as reliable as the second article that uses multiple dates and names. Also the second article shows multiple pictures with captions to show exactly what they are talking about.
4) To verify claims I would visit NASAs official website along with other sites to confirm that the photos are real. Also you could talk to the people who are experts on it, like the people that did the original research or work at NASA
5) I think that the first article is pseudoscience, because it gives no reasons to believe in their hypothesis besides the fact that it seems like an unnatural landform shape. It also seems unrealistic and doesn’t seem like a logical explanation for this problem; especially since there are many other possible reasons for this phenomenon
PART 2:
ReplyDeleteThe responsibility of the media in reporting on the search for life is to just tell the news just how it is and not add anything that’s false or over exaggerate anything just to make the news “more exciting”. The responsibility of the scientific community in reporting what their research shows is that to just let everything that they know so far out to public and not hide everything. The public has the rights to know what’s happening in the universe. My responsibility when I read such reports is to asks myself questions about the content and it’s accuracy. I could also do further research to make sure it’s true.
The media plays a huge roll in what people believe, and there are lots of reasons not to trust them at all. When someone does a story on something the public can’t test on their own, it is the medias job to confirm all facts and make sure that what they are saying is true before they release it. Although, they most likely don’t do that and a lot of misinterpreted information could be in their reports.
ReplyDeleteOur responsibility is to “take it with a grain of salt,” or to consider new ideas but not believe them as completely true laws. We should also make sure that any claims made in a story all seem like provable facts that you think that the source could have easily gotten data about. The facts shouldn’t seem to be exaggerated or changed to fit the story that the person is trying to prove.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteArticle 1
1. The face was a monument created by an ancient mars civilization
2. The scientists took a picture of the Face of Mars
Article 2
1. The face of mars is a geological structure called a mesa and was created by tectonic motion and glaciers
2. The scientists used high resolution cameras and laser beams show the Face of Mars without shadows.
Both
3. The first article used the fact that the picture taken of the face was in fact real because a NASA scientist said so. It also had no true backing and was just throwing around ideas with little proof. Also it used a single picture instead of many. The second article used real dates, names of people, and used more than just a single picture. The scientist also made measurements instead of saying unbelievable ideas.
4. You could check out the statements on the internet or from check out all the facts with a reliable source to confirm them.
5. Article 1 is the pseudoscience article. The article claims the face is of Martian design and its only backing is an anonymous scientist. There weren’t any hard facts, only claims backed up by nothing.
PART ONE
ReplyDelete1. The theory or hypothesis in article one is that there is in fact a face on mars. Although in article two the scientist identify the object not as a face but as a mesa with very different heights.
2. The scientists in article two used a laser altimeter that measured every tiny little thing on the mesa. After hundreds of photos the scientist discovered that the mesa cannot be the image of an Egyptian face because it is lacking eyes, a nose, and a mouth. All the scientists in article one have are pictures of the giant mass with a weird shadow across the front of it.
3. Both articles used a lot of data to back their theories. But I did favor article two because it seemed like that article actually had facts, with citations. While article one just had anonymous quotes from a somewhat believable source.
4. I would research the sources that each article stated and see if what the sources say is actually worth believing.
5. I would classify article one as the pseudoscience article because of its lack of citations, quotes, and saying that they got really good answers from anonymous people that have refused to be credited.
PART TWO
ReplyDeleteThe media has a huge responsibility of reporting what is happening currently in our world. If the media were to say something in a different tone then the entire sentence could be taken incorrectly. Also the media needs to be well informed. If they are not then what they are reporting has no meaning and it is just gossip. The importance of the scientific community reporting what they have researched is that if they hide it the media could take it the wrong way. As in what are they trying to hide and why aren’t we allowed to know? Why isn’t the world allowed to know whatever you are hiding? If these questions are asked it makes people that rely on the media for information get upset and mad that we aren’t being told what we want to be. Our responsibility when we read these reports from both the media and the scientific community is to keep an open mind while we are reading it then when we are finished do our own research to figure out which one is true and should be believed.
1.) In both articles, alien civilization was considered to be the cause of the face, but the first article was supporting that theory a lot more than the second article, which explained that the face is a natural landform.
ReplyDelete2.)In both articles, the scientists took new and better pictures so they could analyze them and find out the true origin of the face.
3.)They both used pictures as evidence, but the second article, unlike the first, supported that the pictures and people were real by stating their names and the dates the pictures were taken.
4.)For the first article, you could google parts of the information to see if it was taken from somewhere else and for the second, you could look up and research the scientists and the dates recorded in the reading.
5.)I would definately classify the first article as pseudoscience because the people apparently didn't want their names known, the dates, or the places where they met and did research or had meetings.
Part II
ReplyDeleteThe media's responsibility when they publish a report like this is they should check and verify that it is really true. The media often reports things that are crazy just because they know they could get a lot of money from it. This is not a good strategy, but there's nothing we can do about that. What we can do is read things with a critical eye so we don't fall for ridiculous things. Scientists should make sure when they send out a report of their research that they have stated the names of people and telescopes or satellites used, the dates and/or weather of the day the picture was taken, and places where the group of scientists met, had meetings, or studied evidence together.
Part 1:
ReplyDelete1. In the first article, they said that "aliens" made the landforms, while in the second article, they said it was most likely made by geologic processes.
2. In both articles, better pictures were taken to show the "face," but in the second article, they used a laser to measure the geometric proportions and measurments of the landform.
3. The first article didn't cite sources or say anything about who/when the pictures were taken; while the second article sited all sources and said who the pictures were taken by and when they were taken.
4. Look up the scientists and the pictures on the internet or in a scientific publication; see if anything was made up or not.
5. The first article is psuedoscience. The sources weren't cited properly, it held mentions of "secret meetings," and didn't support their "findings" with any real evidence.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteThe media's responsibility when reporting on the search for life is to only report accurate, scientificly proven information. Not pseudoscience bull(waste excretions).
The scientific community's responsibility is to make sure their publications are accurate, and to make sure they are circulated proberly and introduced to the public in a way that many people will know about them.
Our responsibility is to think critically and skeptically, and not beleiving everything we read or see just because it "sounds" scientific and true.
PART ONE
ReplyDeleteArticle one: the theory or hypothesis used to explain the face on mars is that the face on mars is a message to space-traveling civilizations.
Article two: the theory or hypothesis used to explain the face on mars is that the face is a natural landform on mars. It is very similar to the others around it.
Article one and two: they took pictures with high power cameras to prove that it wasn’t just a reflection from the sun. In the second article they also found the height, width, volume, ect. of the landmass.
Article one: the idea that the face was not a trick of the light was derived from the same data and photos taken that said it was a trick of the light.
Article two: the picture taken by the Mars Global Surveyor were 30 times sharper than the ones taken by the Viking. It showed that there was no mouth or eyes or nose in the landmass. It was a natural made mesa.
Article one: I would make sure that the NASA student and NASA were looking at the same variables and pictures.
Article two: you would need to make sure that the pictures were valid, and that they weren’t faked or distorted.
I would say article one is Pseudoscience because article two had better supporting details and proof. It was also more valid. Article one’s information came from an unidentified source. That could be anyone.
PART TWO:
ReplyDeleteThe responsibility of the media when reporting on the search for extra terrestrial life is to keep it accurate, and also to report it in a way that keeps people interested. They should not, however, decided what they do and do not tell the public. We should get to know all the facts right away, and they should be correct. The responsibility of the scientists is to use accurate testing to get accurate results and to keep the media informed, so they can then keep us informed. Our job as a society is to keep an open mind to what our scientists find. We should be able, however, to understand what is true and pick out the facts that are so far out there they are most defiantly unbelievable. We almost have to put our faith in the scientists that they give us the right results and conclusions.
Part One:
ReplyDelete1. Article One: The theory used to explain the “face” is that the “face” is part of a city with parallel architecture to the Egyptian pyramids.
Article Two: The theory used to explain the “face” in this article is that it is just another Martian mesa, which are common in Cydonia.
2. Article One: The scientists took pictures of the “face” using space probes.
Article Two: The scientists took pictures using space probes, and they also used a laser altimeter to study the “face.”
3. The first article did not have very much data to back up their statements and make the article believable. It only mentioned one person and there were no dates or information like that. But the second article had one person making lots of scientific quotes and many other names were mentioned in the article. There was also data, like dates and they mentioned the use of scientific equipment a lot.
4. To verify the statements mentioned in the articles, I would probably go to NASA’s website and try to follow what’s happening there.
5. The first article would definitely be pseudoscience, because it sounded like it could have been made up. The lack of names of scientists and data show that someone could easily have written this article and the information inside it could be false.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe media’s responsibility about reporting about otherworldly life is that they don’t twist the truth by showing only one side of the argument and they have to say exactly what the scientist say, not their own claims. The scientist shouldn’t hide anything and should report exactly what the have discovered not their claims. A regular person’s responsibility when reading about this is that they should not immediately believe everything just because someone said it. They need to do their research and make sure everything is really true.
Part Two:
ReplyDeleteThe media’s responsibility in reporting on the search for life is to share with everyone the facts that they receive that they can prove are true. They should share the facts that people need to know, not the facts that they think people should know or the facts that they just want to share. The responsibility of the scientific community in reporting what their research shows is to give us the information that can be backed up with data and names so we know we are receiving the right facts. Our responsibility when we read these reports is to believe the scientists and trust that they are giving us the right information. It should be easy to tell if something is true or if it is just made up.
PART ONE:
ReplyDelete1. The Face on Mars is part of a city that has a parallel architecture to the Egyptian pyramids. In article one.
It looked like just another Martian mesa, called Cydonia. Only this one had unusual shadows that made it look like the face of an Egyptian Pharaoh.
2.Article one just used the one picture to make you beleive while article two used laser beams to find its height, volume, and aspect ratio. It was similar to the other mesas around the region. They also used multiple shots of the face and used computerized maps to look at the face from any angle unaltered by light and shadow, they then discovered there are no eyes, no nose, and no mouth on this.
3.The first article didn't cite any sources or say anything about who took the pictures, where they got them, or when the pictures were taken, the second article cited all sources and said who the pictures were taken by and when the pictures were taken. Also while article one had only one picture showing the face, article two had three shots with different types of cameras and higher resolution.
4.I would use the internet to look up if they even were looking at the same images and research them further.
5.I would say article one is pseudoscience because there is no evidence that supports their theory. Unlike article one, article two explained the experiments and used quotes from reliable sources. They also didn't show any real evidence supporting their hypothesis.
The responsiblity of the media in reporting on the search for life is very important. They need to tell us the honest truth on the experiment and twist their words around. They need to state facts that matter in the situation and not just words to fill the space. Our respnsibility when reading or seeing this research is to research it further and see if they are telling the truth and if it is logical to believe and be able to trust our sources. We also should be able to tell science from Pseudoscience.
ReplyDeletePART ONE
ReplyDelete1. in each artical the hypothesis used to explain the viking image is that there are other living organisims over on mars who are letting us know that they are there by making a human face similar to the egyptian towers, they say that they are almost parellel and her to decifer from eachother.
2. they sent the viking to crash down and see if there really were living organisims if it would attract them. they also took more pictures and lazered the face and took over 100 measurements on the face to match the form.
3. the two articals both say that nasa provided the information, and that further experiments would be conducted. they also both say that the mystery of the face has been solved. they both say that the face is not a result of the light reflecting on the rock formation.
4. cheak there resorces, and also look it up on the internet, and question them about it. if they can not provide further information on the subject that makes logical scence theres no way it can actually be logical.
5. i would classify artical 1 as pseudoscience beacsue it does not offer room to expand further and it is more filled with statements, that arent nessisarly reasonable. they could make it more apealling if they hadent made it "prove" the theory, which is not in any way proven yet.
PART TWO
ReplyDeletethe media is responsible for providing the right research and making sure it is to to dot and by that i mean if a scientist comes for an interview and says "the face on mars has not been proven as a law but it is certaintly a mater off looking at" does not mean "the face on mars has now been proven as a law and no longer a theory, it was good that we kept looking at it" similar words in a different order, but two completly different meanings!it is the scientists resonsibility to let them know the truth, and whats going on. not twisting words or tell false statements and letting us know where the evidence came from, anyone can hand us a file and say look at the new law, very few can hand you a file and say heres the evidence. lastly it is our responsiblilty to keep and austomistic and open mind while reading but at the same time make it logical.
Part one:
ReplyDelete1. In articles one and two the theory or hypothesis used to explain the image of the Face is it was created by alien life forms, although in the second article their evidence to back up the image was more based on natural landforms on mars.
2. The scientists experimented with higher quality photos, and technology like laser altimeters to measure depth of the Face with greater precision, so that they could get a sharper image and a better idea of what the Face looks like.
3. The data in article one was a lot more vague and seemed to be leaving things out. None of the facts were specific and leaves you skeptic about believing them. Article two, however had more specific facts, cited sources and captioned pictures descriptively. This article is more believable.
4. To verify the claims and facts you could visit official websites, like NASA’s website or check out another reliable source. Also you could read other articles like these to see how the information matches up.
5. I would say that article one is pseudoscience, because it lacks many of the things to make it scientific. None of the information was cited or could be backed up and it lacked believability.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletepart 2:
ReplyDeleteThe medias responsibility is to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They have the power to mislead people and make them believe things that are completely untrue, and so with power comes their responsibility to give us information that has not been altered in anyway. They should tell us the facts, and nothing but.
The responsibility of the scientific community is basically to take what the media tells us and prove if they are or not really telling the facts. What they report in their research should clear up any misunderstood statements the media made and prove what the media tells us. Our responsibility when reading these articles is to not believe anything we hear, evaluate the facts and make a educated decision on what to believe. If everyone believed it every time some suspicious photos showed up of life on other planets, or unidentified flying objects, what would happen to the world! Its our responsibility to test the credibility of the articles and facts.
Part 1
ReplyDelete1) In the first article, the theory used to explain the face on Mars is that it is part of a city on Mars. The second article says that the mesas in Cydonia could have been created by glaciers, winds and water, or tectonic plates.
2) In both the articles the scientists took higher quality pictures but in the second article the scientists measured the height of the mesas using lasers.
3) The scientists in article one use big words to make it sound like they have data but they only talk about it. They say that they took higher resolution pictures but never show them. The scientists in article two used data to disprove most of the existing theories about the face on Mars. They took more high resolution pictures which allowed them to see more details. They laser measured all the mesas in Cydonia showing them that there was nothing unique about the face mesa.
4) There are no real facts in article one to verify because it says that NASA is keeping them secret. It would be easy to verify the facts in article two because it tells you that all the information is posted on NASA's website whhich can be easily looked up by anyone.
5) I would classify article one as pseudoscience because there aren't any facts that can be verified because the article says that NASA is hiding the real data from the public. Also no one can repeat the experiments they did because there are no facts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart 1
ReplyDelete1. Article 1: the theory is that the “face” on Mars is part of a city that created by a Civilization living on Mars. Article 2: the hypothesis is that the face shape had just been a normal landform.
2. In the first article they used image analysis software to tell that the “face” wasn’t just a shadow or at an odd angle. In the second article they also took very high quality images but also measured the height, volume, and aspect ratio.
3. In article 1 they didn’t have any real evidence or data besides their observations of its parallel architecture to the Egyptian pyramids from looking at the image and also there were no references, dates, times, or any citations. In article 2 there were dates, time, data, and real quotes from scientists who had gone there on the spacecraft.
4. I would research other articles and see if they have the same ideas. Also see what noted scientists or NASA is saying about the idea. For article 2 I would see if the missions talked about were even real and see if there really were other landforms like it in that area.
5. I would say the first article is pseudoscience. First of all the first article had no reliable information or citations while the second article did, including interview quotes from a person who actually went on that mission. Secondly The idea of the “face being a simple landform that could have been carved by wind or another natural source makes a lot more sense than the outrageous idea of a pyramid like shape being a part of a city built by Martian civilization. Also in the second article the measurements of the “face” were same as those around it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart 2
ReplyDeleteThe responsibility of the media in reporting on the search for life is to tell us all of the facts, not just the ones they want to tell us. It is also their responsibility to verify the facts to make sure that they are true before they print the article.
The scientific community has the responsibility to give us enough facts and data that can easily be verified through experimentation and repeated by anyone.
My responsibility is to do research if an article seems like it has more opinions than facts or if it just doesn't sound right.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePart 2
ReplyDeleteThe media’s responsibility is to get people interested in the topic so they will be aware of the new idea but still keep the information accurate. They must not lead the audience in the wrong direction and fill their heads with mythical fantasies. The scientific community’s responsibility is to make sure the media isn’t making stories up or saying the scientists are covering up the idea of other life in space. That just angers the people more because of course the people want to know what’s going on and the media knows that so they use that as an advantage against the helpless scientists. As an audience I know a story about alien life forms living on Mars that can make pyramid like city’s is more exciting than boring landforms sculpted by natural resources; but I know what the truth is and I have to maintain a professional thought process when hearing about these type of stories.
Part 1
ReplyDelete1. Article one says that the “face” is part of a past or present civilization. And article two says that the face’ is a nature landform.
2. In article one, scientists took better quality pictures to prove their theory, and article two also mentioned the use of high resolution photography but also used lasers to calculate distances and volumes that aren’t affected by any shadows or light.
3. The first article was no vague. It said that scientists wanted to remain anonymous. And in article two, they had multiple pictures and quotes that supported the idea.
4. I would check out the statements by checking multiple websites to see if they have the same ideas and the same people mentioned.
5. Article one is what I would classify as pseudoscience. There wasn’t enough evidence to support their ideas. They didn’t use names of scientists and there weren’t any recorded dates mentioned in the article.
Part 1:
ReplyDelete1) In article one to describe the theory of the “face” of mars, they believe the “face” came from a past or present city or civilization. In article two, they believe the “face” to be a natural landform created by glacier’s ect.
2) For both theories they used space probes to retrieve pictures of the “face”. In article two, they also used laser beams to precisely measure the height.
3) The first article doesn’t with hold as much details. Such as name of scientists, or dates. In the second article they had dates to back up details and names to match with every fact.
4) To verify information in this article you could look on the NASA website for the certain dates. Or try to find previous research from the scientists mentioned. You can always look up pictures and see if you can find the ones shown in the articles.
5) The first article is pseudoscience. This article doesn’t have enough to back up their facts, giving you no way to research and check up on the truth of the facts. They also don’t mention any names or dates giving you no idea as to how the whole situation played out. They also didn’t have details to back up their “face” picture making you think twice about it being real
Part 2
ReplyDeleteThe media is made to keep us all well informed on any new information that is found. They must be sure that everything they print or publish is up to date and is from credible sources.
The scientific community is to report directly what they found even if the information may be different then an older idea or theory they are to be prompt and open to releasing the information to the public knowledge.
When we are to read reports we are given the opportunity to classify the evidence given as credible or not. We should be tentative about accepting information based solely on the exciting way it is presented or by whom the knowledge comes from. If we find what we evaluate as trustworthy we should feel free to give out and verify what we found.
Part 1
ReplyDelete1.) In article number 1 the scientists theory was that the face is made by extraterrestrials. In article number 2 the theory is that given at the end of the artilcle is that the mesas were natural landmarks.
2.) Before technology was inhanced scientists took photographs but they used a series of lasers to test depth and measure of the mesas in 2001.
3.) In article one we are shown a series of ideas but no actual evidence or facts to back it up. In article two they used direct quotations and backed up their evidence with the use of the laser altimeter.
4.) You could either check on them using organizations known for science such as NASA as well as verifying using more than three sites also found on the web to prove that it is not a made up fact.
5.) Article one could definitely be classified as pseudoscience. For example, they give an anonymous quote. This anonymous quote makes it very difficult to look into and confirm this information.
Part 1:
ReplyDelete1. In the first article the theory used to explain the Viking image of the “face” on mars is that ancient Martian civilizations created the face as a message to space travelers.In the second article the theory used to explain the Viking image of the face on mars is that shadows created by the sun on natural rock landforms formed a facelike appearance.
2. Both articles claimed to collect data from images. The first said it used images from the Polar lander. While the second said they used the land rover to get more accurate pictures of the “face” that were taken from 1976 to 2001.
3. In the first article quotes are used to make it look like Nasa has covered up released images of the ‘face’. This makes the reader assume that Nasa is hiding something and that the face must be part of a Martian civilization. In the second article it has specific dates used. It also tries to dispel the myths that the face is part of a Martian civilization by saying that the lander took multiple photos of the ‘face’ over a period of time. This makes it clear it was a rock formation.
4. To verify the statements made in each article are real you could research the quotes used, or the people and organizations named in the article. If you found this information repeated by credible sources then it is probably true.
5. I would classify the first article as pseudoscience. This is because it says things such as “at an undisclosed location” or “a former scientist, who wished to remain unnamed” and that Nasa officials “had no comment on such reports.” The part about they layout of the ‘city’ and the use of the word spaceport was also too confusing and unrealistic.
–Courtney Dirks
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteThe responsibility of the media in reporting on the search for life is to provide the accurate information instead of information that is entertaining but not true. The scientific community should provide accurate information and, most importantly, supporting evidence. When you read reports you should keep in mind that not everything you read is factual and that you have to determine which information is true and which isn’t.
-Courtney Dirks
Part 1
ReplyDelete1.In the first article the theory/hypothesis was that the Face on Mars is a message towards space-traveling civilizations. In the second it was that the Face on Mars is a huge rock formation covered by shadows giving the it the illusions of a face. This could've been formed by the gouging of glaciers,carved by winds and water,or thrust upward by vertical tectonics.
2.In the first article the scientists used high resolution images taken from the space probe, the Viking, to prove the theory of the Face on Mars. In the second article, the scientists also used images but they took more than one image and at higher resolutions evrytime to get a more clearer and accurate result. They also used a laser altimeter to measure the height of Cydonia's mesas with great precision.
3.Both articles had data supporting their story but article two had stronger data. Article two had multiple pictures, over different time periods, citations. Basically it had more facts, unlike article one, that had quotes from an anonymous former NASA scientist. This makes it seem like a very unreliable source when your source won't even tell you who it is!
4.To verify the statements in both articles, I would go to NASA's website and search trough the past quotes or pictures. I would also go look up if the scientists are real and if their quotes ar valid.
5.I would classify Article 1 as psuedoscience. This is because they don't have a recognizable source, they're anonymous, they also have one-sided "facts". In article 1 it never mentions the other side of the story, the possibility that it might be false. While on the other hand, Article 2 has recognizable sources, multiple pictures to support their theory and states the other side of the story, that it might be true but then uses real facts to prove that the Face on Mars is false.
-April L.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteThe media's responsibility in reporting on the search for life is to inform us with ALL the new upcoming facts. The media has the power to control the public by giving us false, partial or extracted information. If or when the media doesn't give us the whole truth this causes a disturbance in our society. When we recieve misleading information it gives us the illusion of the impossible becoming possible but when we figure out the truth, it crushes our hopes. This is why it is up to the media to use their power responsibily to assist us in furthering our education on the search of life on other planets, instead of making psuedoscience articles that would make us trust them less.
The responsibility in the scientific community in reporting what their research shows is to bring their facts to the table with confidence. They need to provide us with strong facts, that have supporting evidence and they need to make sure that by the time it reaches us-the public, the information is not altered. These are your, the scientists, findings that you worked hard to give us. You should have the right to show your work to us, so we can both move ahead towards the future.
Our responsibiltity as crtics and evaluators of the reports we are given, are to do just that evaluate! Just like we did with the two articles. Our job is to evaluate the article and determine if it is science or psuedoscience. We need to do this carefully. This is because our opinion can affect others, power comes in numbers. So when we are mislead information or we get other factors like religion affect our critique it can affect everyone. But we are each our own person so we need to think for ourselves then share with our peers so we have a better understanding of the whole picture. With this in thought it is important that we think carefully when we voice our opinions when we are presented information and reports by both the media, scientific community, and our peers.
-April L.
Part 1:
ReplyDelete1. In the first article the hypothesis is that the "face of mars" is actually the carving of a face used as a signal to other space civilizations. In the secon article the hypothesis is that the "face of mars" is just a large mesa that, with the right shadows, looks like a face with eyes, a nose, and a mouth.
2. In the first article the scientists used one low-resolution photo of the "face of mars" from the Viking. This photo was the photo that had the "face" actually looking like a face. In the second article NASA went back to mars two seperate times taking higher-resolution photos from more than one angle that showed that the "face of mars" was actually just a large mesa.
3. In the first article there is very little data that is reliable. It had only one ENHANCED picture that was takeen from only one angle and then a quote from an "anonymous" scientist. In the second article there was much more data. There were multiple pictures of different resolutions and quotes from actual NASA scientists.
4. In order to verify the claims made by both the articles I would search for all the pictures of the "face of mars" I can find. Then I would look up Jodi Asbell-Edwards and see if she has a background in any of these types of sciences. I would also go onto NASA's website and learn as much as I could about these pictures as possible, then I would make my own hypothesis.
5. I would classify the first article as pseudoscience because it has all the things that you normally find in a pseudoscience artical. It has an anonymous scientist, and it has exaggerations.
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteI think that it is the media's job to give us the truth on the search for life on other planets. At least they should give us everything we know to be true. By giving us exaggerated stories and some that are just pure lies is unbelievebly disrespectful. If the media does not give us the truth on the search for other life forms then I believe it is the scientific community's job to pick up the pieces and not give into the media as well. Then finally it is our responsibility to make a logical decision on our own and not to give the media any pleasure in misleading us.
Part One:
ReplyDelete1: The theory of the first article vikings, is that the ancient civilization created the "face" on mars as a message to space travelers. The second article says that the "face" on mars was created by shadows from the sun.
2: The first article just used a photo to guide you to belive what they said. The second article gave a picture but also included its hieght volume and aspect ratio.
3: The first articles data was stated that the "face" on mars has a parellel architecture to the egyptian pyrimids. The second article gave data that they colected. For example they collected the hieght volume and aspect ratio.
4: for article one you could look up on the internet what the architecture of the egyptian pyrimids are and compare it to the "face" on mars. for article two you could make sure that the calculations are correct and that they used the photo and didnt hake up numbers.
5: I think that the first article is the most pseudoscience because it just seems more as a theory that the ancient civilization created the face on the moon because how would they do it? that is why i thing the first article is the most psedoscience because it just seems false to me.
Part Two:
ReplyDeletePeople tend to belive what thy hear. even if it was from there friends tv ect. so when the media searches for life and reports it people are going to belive what they say.
scientist like to test theorys so when a scientist says that the did a report on something other scientist want to check it out to see what there results were.
our responsibility it to tell our friends because they like to belive what they hear and see.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteI believe that the media is used to inform all of us on the newest science discoveries of our universe. When information like this is posted to the public it needs to be checked and double checked that it is accurate, because having false information out in public can start riots. Although false information should not be leaked to the public it has happened before. So making sure that the sources are accurate on an article and checking up on information can assure that you don't read false information.
Part 1:
ReplyDelete1. The first article proposes that the “face” was a monument created by intelligent life forms to try and communicate to the outside world. The second article states that the “face” is an earthen mass that could have been formed by glaciers, plate tectonics or created by wind and water.
2. In the first article, they used solely pictures from satellites to determine that the face was formed by intelligent life. However, in the second article they used both pictures and measurements of the dimensions of the face produced by lasers to prove it was simply an earthen mass.
3. In the first article there was an absence of anything that could be researched such as the names of scientists, dates of events, numbers, or any real evidence that would prove or even suggest the face being anything but a coincidental mixture of shadows and hills. They also used only one source whose quotes were capable of being pasted to either article and fitting appropriately; they were fragmented and shortened with no real point. In the second article there were names of satellites and scientists, dates on which the pictures were taken. The second article also had full quotes as well as both sides of the argument.
4. For the first article one could do research and find out if NASA officials made the statement given as well as the ex-NASA scientist’s statements. One could also look up if the high resolution photos that proved the face to be real actually existed. For the second article one could research the names given to see if they are a credited source.
5. I would classify the first article as pseudoscience for its lack or researchable details and names and also the article’s vagueness of what evidence this theory was developed from. It just seemed to have been created for the purpose of making headlines.
Part: 2
ReplyDeleteThe responsibility of the media in the reporting of the search of life is to be accurate and bring the truth to the masses. However, this is not what happens in reality. The media is well known for “exaggerating” the truth in order to make money.
The responsibility of the scientific community in the reporting of their research is to give accurate data that is easily understood by the public. It is also important to give specific quotes that could not be twisted into meaning something else.
When reading such reports it’s our responsibility to be skeptical and consider both sides of the issue before deciding which to believe. It’s also important to research the topic and the sources validity if in doubt.