NASA's non-invasive fallacy

NASA has a philosophy of non-invasive behaviour during space exploration, perhaps colonization.

The existence of life on the moon or planets cannot . . . rationally be precluded. At the very least, present evidence is not inconsistent with its presence. . . . Negative data will not prove that extraterrestrial life does not exist; they will merely mean that it has not been found.

To contain any alien life forms, astronauts, spacecraft, and lunar materials coming back from the moon should be placed immediately in an isolation unit; the astronauts should be held in rigid quarantine for at least three weeks; and preliminary examination of the samples should be conducted behind absolute biological barriers, under rigid bacterial and chemical isolation.

The justification is to prevent harm to astronauts and space through decontamination at every level.   Makes sense from a personal protection perspective. But what about finding extra terrestrial (ET) life?

It is fallacious from a logic perspective. If external life doesn't exist, by this doctrine, and there is no way to find it but one can't stop the doctrine. One can't prove the existence of a non-existent thing, but this test says you have to keep testing forever; even if you know you can't find it! There is no limit on a potentially empty test. There is no acknowledgement that life might be found outside and above the level of microbes so why waste effort on virus / microbe level searching?

Without any hope of proving life exists this at this level this restrains freedom of action on many areas.

The problem with this mentality, born out of a university-level curiosity without impact ideal, is this: firing missiles into space and colliding them with space object is by itself an invasive act. Driving robots on lunar surfaces is contaminating a pristine natural object.  To spend inordinate sums to clean every surface of space probes only wastes resources. It doesn't prevent accidental trampling ET life at the microbe level.

If there is no life confirmed to live on Mars, we will have wasted much for nothing. It may take several life times to discover extraterrestrial life. All the while we are losing chances to change Mars to suitable conditions for humans. We could be terraforming it, we could be generating atmosphere using microbes launched at Mars.

Denying our ability to impact a planet like Mars is only slowing down progress not stopping the inevitable change. 

CNN's Haroon Moghul is just as bigoted as #DonaldTrump

Bigot is defined as:


bigot ‎(plural bigots)

1. (derogatory) One who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices.

   Don't call me a bigot. That's extremely rude!

2. One who is strongly partial to one's own group (e.g. religion, race, gender, political party, etc.) and is intolerant of those who differ.

In his opinion piece, mainly because it is as much conjecture about Donald Trump as Trump himself espouses, he demonstrates his own bigotry.


He writes:

It doesn't matter if Donald Trump said we should look into getting rid of Muslims, or terrorist training camps, because, to a worrying number of Americans, these appear to be the same.

They've learned this from people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who preaches that Muslims are either extremists or in denial, and Glenn Beck, who preaches that Muslims are either extremists or in denial, and so on.

Except that, if Mr. Haroon Moghul is staunchly of the opinion that Muslims are normal people and not in denial about Islam, then he too is 1) obstinately devoted to his opinion (i.e. in denial ) and 2) strongly partial to one's own group in assuming ALL Muslims are ordinary normal people. He provides no proof of his statements either, and he cannot evade suicide bombers, ISIS sympathizers, and terrorist attacks committed by Muslims inside the USA that amount to more than zero Muslims are not normal ordinary people.

He states about Trump:

Thank God for Freudian slips that clarify. See, Trump's questioner began by saying, "We have a problem in this country. It's called Muslims." He did not say "jihadists," "terrorists," "extremists," or anything of the kind. He called our President a Muslim, which is not true; note, however, that he did not call Obama a Muslim and a terrorist, because it is safe to assume that in his mind, every Muslim is a terrorist.

If Donald Trump can't claim all Muslims are terrorists, then how do you get to deny extremists are Muslim? By calling a jihadist a jihadist literally means "One who participates in a jihad" and a jihad means  "A holy war undertaken by Muslims". Mr. Haroon Moghul is in pure denial.

Without recognizing there are problems in Islam, without accepting facts that are patently obvious to anyone, Mr. Haroon Moghul too is ignoring the same reality as Trump. So how is his opinion better?

He is too a bigot, against people that speak out against Islam, as much as Donald Trump is a bigot.

Having an opinion that is against Islam is acceptable under the law, so there never was a mistake made in pointing out Islam has problems.

Life under religion

Take this story about ISIS and defectors as a story writ large about life under religion.  You could substitute medieval Europe and Christianity as the back drop for the same brutality and oppression: it is not the people but the religious justification that allows evil in the name of righteousness.


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34313337

The International Centre for the Study for Radicalisation (ICSR) at King's College, which published the report, estimates that hundreds of former militants have now defected or attempted to defect.
Dozens are thought to have made it out via Turkey while others have reportedly been caught and executed. The ICSR claims that the 58 cases in their study are "likely only a fraction of those disillusioned, ready to defect and/or willing to go public".

---

What the defectors said

• "I opened up my jacket and said, 'I have a suicide vest, but I don't want to blow myself up'" - Usaid Barho, Syrian teenager
• "Anything that contradicts their beliefs is forbidden. Anyone who follows what they reject is an apostate and must be killed" - anonymous defector
• "The restrictions on leaving made it feel a bit like a prison" - Abu Ibrahim, 'Westerner'

Read more case studies in full

---

The researchers identify several key narratives among the reasons for leaving IS. Most defectors said they were concerned with brutality against fellow Muslims and perceived "un-Islamic" behaviour among members, including corruption.
Some admitted they were disappointed with the quality of life under IS. "They were typically among the ones who had joined the group for material and 'selfish' reasons, and quickly realised that none of the luxury goods and cars that they had been promised would materialise," the report says.
Two fighters said they defected after learning they were to be suicide bombers. Speaking to the BBC last year, one defector, who asked not to be named, said the "brutality of IS terrifies everyone".
"Anything that contradicts their beliefs is forbidden. Anyone who follows what they reject is an apostate and must be killed," he said.

 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32831854

Best quote of the article:

 IS is the enemy of humanity

Zaid

 

And yet, religious groups seem to think they have some moral authority here in the west; when Ben Carson said he wouldn't support a Muslim president, Islamic groups demands presidential candidates meet their expectations, agree with us or drop out of the race. Remember that defector: "Anything that contradicts their beliefs is forbidden. Anyone who follows what they reject is an apostate and must be killed".