rigorousintuition.ca

HMW said "That's relevant to the thread and not derailing.
And I stand by my claim that this board is leaning more and more towards b.s. and less and less the history and science of social control."
Is this board about the history and science of socila control? I thought it had a more wide spread agenda...or did I miss the memo?

Avalon:

Elvis, loved your take, though you probably should have included an analysis of the dynamic tension between Macy's and Bloomingdales

That's brilliant, E. You're the king.

Whatever it is, real or not, alien made or natural feature of Mars, its still intriguing! I'm still surprised people argue over it after all these years. In any case, I do really enjoy the Mission to Mars movie about the "Face of Mars"

Whatever it is, real or not, alien made or natural feature of Mars, its still intriguing!

Perhaps as one of the most widespread examples of pareidoliac apophenia ever. I mean really.... right?

I'm still surprised people argue over it after all these years.

I'm not surprised at all, although I wish I was.

brainpanhandler wrote:Perhaps as one of the most widespread examples of pareidoliac apophenia ever. I mean really.... right?

No, not necessarily right.

How about before you drag in the pop psych buzzwords like pareidolic apophenia, you make sure you aren't operating from (here's some more pop psych buzzwords) denial, confirmation bias, and visual illiteracy?

You forgot to say what the criteria would be that would determine if the Face on Mars is likely to be a huge, extremely eroded earthwork -- say like a recumbent Mt. Rushmore --- rather than a bunch of random rocks. If you can't use the language of art and archeology to establish that criteria, perhaps it's a bit soon to dismiss it so glibly.

Avalon wrote:

brainpanhandler wrote:Perhaps as one of the most widespread examples of pareidoliac apophenia ever. I mean really.... right?

No, not necessarily right.

How about before you drag in the pop psych buzzwords like pareidolic apophenia, you make sure you aren't operating from (here's some more pop psych buzzwords) denial, confirmation bias, and visual illiteracy?

You forgot to say what the criteria would be that would determine if the Face on Mars is likely to be a huge, extremely eroded earthwork -- say like a recumbent Mt. Rushmore --- rather than a bunch of random rocks. If you can't use the language of art and archeology to establish that criteria, perhaps it's a bit soon to dismiss it so glibly.

I pulled out the polysyllabic pop psych buzzwords because it was a convenient way to say something without having to write a long boring explanation of a relatively simple and otherwise well known phenomena.

I still feel I have an open mind about it, but MTK's gobbeldy gook has done little to keep it open. I'll take the credit for that. If I ever see some sort of credible, at least theoretically testable and at least something more than utterly subjective evidence then I'll rethink things. Until then I see no reason to use the language of archeology nor am I inclined to use the language of art, although that would be more appropriate given the complete lack of evidence for an artificial construction theory for the face on mars and geographically related topographical features.

If I can find another feature on the surface of mars which appears to look like the ruins of a building or a sphinx or a large face or a giant eroded phalllus and I can get a consensus of opinion that it really does resemble what I say it does how would that be any less credible than MTK's cydonia "research"?

Well, Giza has eroded and it's still clearly man-made.

The close up images of, uh...Cydonia....show no artifice or angles whatsoever -- it's a landscape.

Pretty straightforward, right?

brainpanhandler wrote:

Whatever it is, real or not, alien made or natural feature of Mars, its still intriguing!

Perhaps as one of the most widespread examples of pareidoliac apophenia ever. I mean really.... right?

Definitely. The whole idea of some unnatural face on mars, based on those first grainy pictures, was interesting, but all it was useful for was making good fiction ... The only thing "Martian" about Mars is perhaps some microbes.

I'm more interested if the various space programs can get a Manned Mars exploration or "Mars to Stay" initiative underway.

The whole idea of some unnatural face on mars, based on those first grainy pictures, was interesting, but all it was useful for was making good fiction

Yes. It's absolutely fascinating. In fact ironically enough, given Avalon's suggestion that I should assess whether I am "operating from denial, confirmation bias, and visual illiteracy" and the unavoidable implications that go along with that, I am more inclined to want to believe that there really are ruins from some now extinct civilization on the surface of Mars. That's the bias I have to guard against.