ET article not affiliated with NASA

  • NASA
  • Thread starter skippy1729
  • Start date
  • Tags
    nasa
  • #1
skippy1729
First we had the Muslim outreach:

"to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering." BHO http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/07/07/nasas_muslim_outreach_106214.html

Now we have:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011...-to-end-global-warming-nasa-scientist-claims/

I decided to read their paper to see if it could justifiably be called science or of possible value to the NASA program (whatever is left of it). http://sethbaum.com/ac/2011_ET-Scenarios.pdf.

My opinion: Heavily footnoted, mostly common sense, high school level reasoning. I almost puked when I read references to the "Gaia Liberation Front" and the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" as having any relavance to the topic under study.

The possibility that the aliens are angels who are here to rapture true believers before Armaggedon would be as likely a scenario as the global warming possibility. But that would not fit the propaganda purpose of this study.

I can hardly wait until we hear about some partisan school teacher filling little Johnny's head with visions of Aliens exterminating us unless he lives a "green" life.

We are witnessing the politicization of NASA. It is disgusting.

Skippy
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16


Dang, I JUST read something somewhere talking about this. Apparently NASA did not fund this study.
 
  • #3
Evo
Mentor
23,538
3,173


This has nothing to do with NASA.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.4462

However, many discussions of this question assume that contact will follow a particular scenario that derives from the hopes and fears of the author

It's not peer reviewed, it's not affiliated with NASA, in other words, it's nothing but someone's idle speculation, and not something we would allow here in the science forums, but I'll allow it for now as nonsense suitable for GD. Two are students at Penn and the third has finished grad school as far as I can tell.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
22,129
3,298


Wait, that paper actually got published on the ArXiV???? What?? :cry:
 
  • #5
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16


Wait, that paper actually got published on the ArXiV???? What?? :cry:

Considering everything and anything can be published on the arxiv, it's not too surprising.

BAI MICRO!!!
 
  • #6
22,129
3,298


Considering everything and anything can be published on the arxiv, it's not too surprising.

BAI MICRO!!!

Not everything can be published on ArXiV. You need to have an approval to publish there. It's hard to see how they would get this approval. I mean, I'm reading their paper and their main sources are movies like independence day :cry:
 
  • #7
Evo
Mentor
23,538
3,173


Not everything can be published on ArXiV. You need to have an approval to publish there. It's hard to see how they would get this approval. I mean, I'm reading their paper and their main sources are movies like independence day :cry:
Buwahaha.

Maybe it's intended as a prank to embarrass these people. I wonder if they know about this?
 
  • #8
skippy1729


The article I quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011...-to-end-global-warming-nasa-scientist-claims/

stated "The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis."

I have no other information on the funding. I will be happy if NASA was not involved and I hope the conclusion of my original post isn't true i.e. the politicization of NASA.

Skippy
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Evo
Mentor
23,538
3,173


The article I quoted:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011...-to-end-global-warming-nasa-scientist-claims/

stated "The thought-provoking scenario is one of many envisaged in a joint study by Penn State and the NASA Planetary Science Division, entitled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis."

I have no other information on the funding. I will be happy if NASA was not involved and I hope the conclusion of my original post isn't true i.e. the politicization of NASA.

Skippy
Oh,
Shawn D. Domagal-Goldman, a post-doc in NASA’s Planetary Science Division
Nothing to link this to being endorsed by NASA, check out where NASA is mentioned on the arXiV paper, it's where he is working at the moment as a post-doc.

Likewise, Domagal-Goldman’s association with NASA also seems to have drawn attention.

A blog in the Houston Chronicle on the brouhaha addresses the question of whether the paper is NASA-related. Domagal-Goldman is quoted as saying he works at NASA “but this paper has nothing to do with my work there.” Rather, it is something he did in his free time.
There you go Faux News got it wrong.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/08/19/2883552/penn-staters-paper-on-potential.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
22,129
3,298


Oh, Nothing to link this to being endorsed by NASA, check out where NASA is mentioned on the arXive paper, it where he is working at the moment as a post-doc.

There you go Faux News got it wrong.

http://www.centredaily.com/2011/08/19/2883552/penn-staters-paper-on-potential.html [Broken]

So that's what postdocs at NASA do with their time?? Nice... I think a NASA postdoc might be something for me then.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,807
10


There you go Faux News got it wrong.

No. Way. :eek:
 
  • #13
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16


Not everything can be published on ArXiV. You need to have an approval to publish there. It's hard to see how they would get this approval. I mean, I'm reading their paper and their main sources are movies like independence day :cry:

Who approves it?
 
  • #14
22,129
3,298


Who approves it?

See this:

Endorsers must have authored a certain number of papers within the endorsement domain of an archive or subject class. The number of papers depends on the particular subject area, but has been set so that any active scientist who's been working in her field for a few years should be able to endorse IF her work has been submitted to arXiv and IF she is registered as an author of her papers. Endorsement domains have been chosen to reflect related subject areas and ensure that it will be easy for people to find endorsements: most archives (ex. hep-th, cond-mat, q-bio) are currently endorsement domains, with the notable exception of the physics archive, in which individual subject classes (ex. phys.acc-phys, phys.med-ph) are endorsement domains. To ensure that endorsers are active members of the community, we only count papers that have been submitted between three months and five years ago.

http://arxiv.org/help/endorsement
 
  • #15
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16


See this:

Ah yah, endorsers. They're usually the person who is authoring the paper I thought. Except when it's like a new graduate student who needs a higher up (their adviser for example) to get them in. Whatever. I've lost interest.
 
  • #16
Evo
Mentor
23,538
3,173


Ah yah, endorsers. They're usually the person who is authoring the paper I thought. Except when it's like a new graduate student who needs a higher up (their adviser for example) to get them in. Whatever. I've lost interest.
This is why papers in ArxiV are not acceptable sources here. And that *journal* they claim is not recognized either.
 
  • #17
412
4
I believe arXiv is just a service operated by one university:

arXiv is an e-print service in the fields of physics, mathematics, non-linear science, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance and statistics. Submissions to arXiv must conform to Cornell University academic standards. arXiv is owned and operated by Cornell University, a private not-for-profit educational institution. arXiv is funded by Cornell University Library and by supporting user institutions. The National Science Foundation funds research and development by Cornell Information Science.

http://arxiv.org/

I only use IEEE if I require.
 
  • #18
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
I believe arXiv is just a service operated by one university:

Yup but it's pretty much the biggest pre-print server used in physics :)
 
  • #19
Evo
Mentor
23,538
3,173
Yup but it's pretty much the biggest pre-print server used in physics :)
The point is that it's not peer-reviewed and there is a lot of nonsense and garbage on there. Be aware that being uploaded there does not give it credibility. We really do not accept papers from arXiv as sources unless they have also been published in a *recognized* journal and cited (preferably). We just found out that Thompson Reuters master journal list now contians pop science magazines, so even that is no longer a trusted list. :eek:

It seems pop science is now acceptable, what next, History Channel programs?
 
  • #20
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,415
687


This is why papers in ArxiV are not acceptable sources here. And that *journal* they claim is not recognized either.
Sad to say, Acta Astronautica is a recognized journal. It's on the Thomson Reuters list, and it is the flagship journal of the International Academy of Astronautics: http://iaaweb.org/content/view/261/398/.
 
  • #21
D H
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
15,415
687


There you go Faux News got it wrong.
The Guardian started this imbroglio. A few blog sites picked up on the story. They embellished it, commented on it, but never checked the facts. Then the Drudge Report picked it up on the story. They embellished it, commented on, but never checked the facts. Then all kinds of media outlets, particularly right wing media, picked up on it. Faux News was late to the game. To their credit, Fox did publish a retraction: http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2011/08/19/19461/fnc-al-20110819-kellycorrects. The Guardian merely deleted the words "for Nasa" from the subhead.
 
  • #22
Evo
Mentor
23,538
3,173


Sad to say, Acta Astronautica is a recognized journal. It's on the Thomson Reuters list, and it is the flagship journal of the International Academy of Astronautics: http://iaaweb.org/content/view/261/398/.
Aaargh, I copied and pasted it into the search so it didn't come up, but I'm sure I've copied and pasted before, I'm pretty lazy. That just makes this even worse, who peer reviewed that? It's another example of peer review losing credibility, too much cronyism.

The Guardian started this imbroglio. A few blog sites picked up on the story. They embellished it, commented on it, but never checked the facts. Then the Drudge Report picked it up on the story. They embellished it, commented on, but never checked the facts. Then all kinds of media outlets, particularly right wing media, picked up on it. Faux News was late to the game. To their credit, Fox did publish a retraction: http://mediamatters.org/embed/clips/2011/08/19/19461/fnc-al-20110819-kellycorrects. The Guardian merely deleted the words "for Nasa" from the subhead.
Yes, the trail back to The Guardian was in one of the links I posted, along with the post doc's apology for listing NASA. I'm still not sure how it got to the guardian.
 
  • #23
423
1


Not everything can be published on ArXiV. You need to have an approval to publish there. It's hard to see how they would get this approval. I mean, I'm reading their paper and their main sources are movies like independence day :cry:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
  • #24
Chi Meson
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,807
10
I couldn't resist: I had to read the article, and I noticed that it is on the list of "most read" articles on the FOX site. Over 7k "recommends." I assume that there are a few thousand other website forums across the intrawebz that have threads with an OP just like this one. How many, other than this one, are able to dismiss the hullabaloo?
 
  • #25
Evo
Mentor
23,538
3,173
I couldn't resist: I had to read the article, and I noticed that it is on the list of "most read" articles on the FOX site. Over 7k "recommends." I assume that there are a few thousand other website forums across the intrawebz that have threads with an OP just like this one. How many, other than this one, are able to dismiss the hullabaloo?
We are good!!

Hmmm, bad science fiction in the guise of a scientific paper. And to think there are real scientists trying to get real papers published. :surprised
 

Related Threads on ET article not affiliated with NASA

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top