> "...It provides conclusions that people so badly want to prove true that they will look for any evidence, however meager, to bolster their arguments."
You argue from the position that Martians 'must not be real'.
Why is your conclusion any better than those who argue that Martians could be real?
Science works upon evidence. If so:
a) there is some evidence to support the existence of prior life on Mars;
b) it is not the scientific case that life on Mars is impossible/implausible
So why do you so strongly hold on to your own dogma, and chastise the conclusions of others as mere 'fantasy' and 'sci-fi'? You are no smarter than everyone else, by merely being contrarian.
You argue from the position that Martians 'must not be real'.
Why is your conclusion any better than those who argue that Martians could be real?
Science works upon evidence. If so:
a) there is some evidence to support the existence of prior life on Mars;
b) it is not the scientific case that life on Mars is impossible/implausible
So why do you so strongly hold on to your own dogma, and chastise the conclusions of others as mere 'fantasy' and 'sci-fi'? You are no smarter than everyone else, by merely being contrarian.